LRP Standard Indicator Definitions

FAD Indicator Handbook_Feb 2019.pdf

USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program

LRP Standard Indicator Definitions

OMB: 0551-0046

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 0551-0046 can be found here:

2023-06-06 - Revision of a currently approved collection

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Food Assistance
Indicators and
Definitions
Foreign Agricultural Service – Food Assistance
Division
United States Department of Agriculture

FEBRUARY 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 3
BASELINES AND TARGETS ........................................................................................................... 4
REPORTING .............................................................................................................................. 5
FOOD FOR PROGRESS STANDARD INDICATORS SUMMARY ............................................................ 7
FOOD FOR PROGRESS STANDARD INDICATOR DEFINITIONS ..........................................................11
FFPr INDICATOR 1: Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USDA
assistance ............................................................................................................................11
FFPr INDICATOR 2: Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that
promote improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USDA
assistance ............................................................................................................................14
FFPr INDICATOR 3: Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with
USDA assistance....................................................................................................................16
FFPr INDICATOR 4: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance......................................................21
FFPr INDICATOR 5: Number of individuals accessing agriculture-related financing as a result of USDA
assistance ............................................................................................................................26
FFPr INDICATOR 6: Number of individuals participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or
lending programs with USDA assistance ...................................................................................29
FFPr INDICATOR 7: Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance ................................31
FFPr INDICATOR 8: Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USDA assistance ....32
FFPr INDICATOR 9: Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of
research, development, and uptake as a result of USDA assistance...............................................35
FFPr INDICATOR 10: Number of individuals who have received USDA-supported degree-granting nonnutrition-related food security training.....................................................................................38
FFPr INDICATOR 11: Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans
formally proposed, adopted, implemented or institutionalized with USDA assistance .....................40
FFPr INDICATOR 12: Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance.....42
FFPr INDICATOR 13: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance ...44
FFPr INDICATOR 14: Value of new USG commitments and new public and private sector investment
leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition ..........................................................46
FFPr INDICATOR 15: Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USDA assistance .....48

FFPr INDICATOR 16: Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of
USDA assistance....................................................................................................................49
FFPr INDICATOR 17: Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the
following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance ...................................................50
FFPr INDICATOR 18: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance .................52
FFPr INDICATOR 19: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance ......56
FFPr INDICATOR 20: Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance ..............................................58
FFPr INDICATOR 21: Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance .............................................59
FFPr INDICATOR 22: Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs ...............61
FFPr INDICATOR 23: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance .......64
FFPr INDICATOR 24: Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety
nets.....................................................................................................................................65
MCGOVERN-DOLE STANDARD INDICATORS SUMMARY ................................................................67
MCGOVERN-DOLE STANDARD INDICATOR DEFINITIONS ...............................................................72
MGD INDICATOR 1: Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling ,
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text ...........................72
MGD INDICATOR 2: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools.........74
MGD INDICATOR 3: Number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA
assistance ............................................................................................................................76
MGD INDICATOR 4: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who
demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance .....77
MGD INDICATOR 5: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result
of USDA assistance ................................................................................................................78
MGD INDICATOR 6: Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate
use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance .....................................................79
MGD INDICATOR 7: Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of
USDA assistance....................................................................................................................80
MGD INDICATOR 8: Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, improved
water sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance.....................81
MGD INDICATOR 9: Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance ..................83
MGD INDICATOR 10: Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the
following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance ...................................................84
MGD INDICATOR 11: Value of new USG commitments, and new public and private sector investments
leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition ..........................................................86
ii

MGD INDICATOR 12: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance .88
MGD INDICATOR 13: Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance
structures supported as a result of USDA assistance ...................................................................90
MGD INDICATOR 14: Quantity of take-home rations provided (in metric tons) as a result of USDA
assistance ............................................................................................................................91
MGD INDICATOR 15: Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance
...........................................................................................................................................92
MGD INDICATOR 16: Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age
children as a result of USDA assistance .....................................................................................94
MGD INDICATOR 17: Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack,
lunch) as a result of USDA assistance........................................................................................95
MGD INDICATOR 18: Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive
safety nets ...........................................................................................................................97
MGD INDICATOR 19: Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition
practices as a result of USDA assistance ....................................................................................99
MGD INDICATOR 20: Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and
storage practices as a result of USDA assistance....................................................................... 100
MGD INDICATOR 21: Percent of participants of community-level nutrition interventions who practice
promoted infant and young child feeding behaviors ................................................................. 101
MGD INDICATOR 22: Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of
USDA assistance.................................................................................................................. 103
MGD INDICATOR 23: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA
assistance .......................................................................................................................... 105
MGD INDICATOR 24: Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific
interventions through USDA-supported programs.................................................................... 107
MGD INDICATOR 25: Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level
nutrition interventions through USDA-supported programs....................................................... 109
MGD INDICATOR 26: Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions
through USDA-supported programs ....................................................................................... 111
MGD INDICATOR 27: Number of schools using an improved water source ................................... 113
MGD INDICATOR 28: Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities ................................... 115
MGD INDICATOR 29: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s) ............................. 117
MGD INDICATOR 30: Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs............ 119
MGD INDICATOR 31: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 122
MGD INDICATOR 32: Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance.......................... 123
iii

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCUREMENT STANDARD INDICATORS SUMMARY ................................. 124
LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCUREMENT STANDARD INDICATORS DEFINITIONS .............................. 126
LRP INDICATOR 1: Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs................ 126
LRP INDICATOR 2: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions.... 129
LRP INDICATOR 3: Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety
nets................................................................................................................................... 130
LRP INDICATOR 4: Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodity procured as a result of USDA
assistance (by commodity).................................................................................................... 132
LRP INDICATOR 5: Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and
source country)................................................................................................................... 133
LRP INDICATOR 6: Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of USDA assistance (by
commodity and source country) ............................................................................................ 134
LRP INDICATOR 7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance .................. 135
LRP INDICATOR 8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance ....... 139
LRP INDICATOR 9: Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA
assistance .......................................................................................................................... 141
LRP INDICATOR 10: Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the
following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance ................................................. 142
LRP INDICATOR 11: Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance ........................................... 144
LRP INDICATOR 12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance.................................................... 146
LRP INDICATOR 13: Number of people trained in disaster preparedness as a result of USDA assistance
......................................................................................................................................... 151
LRP INDICATOR 14: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance .. 153
LRP INDICATOR 15: Value of new USG commitments, and new public and private sector investments
leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition ........................................................ 155
LRP INDICATOR 16: Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance............................ 157

PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) places a high level of importance on managing for results.
Performance monitoring is a key part of the agency’s implementation of results-oriented management.
According to the FAS Monitoring and Evaluation Policy for the Food Assistance Division (FAD), all grant
agreements must include a Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) that identifies indicators for monitoring
progress in achieving results and presents a strategy for collecting performance data. The plan should
include applicable standard indicators and custom (project-specific) indicators (see the explanation and
definitions below).
FAS uses two types of performance indicators: standard and custom. FAS defines those terms as
follows:
•

•

Standard Indicators: a common set of required (mandatory) indicators identified by FAS that
must be used by all recipients, if applicable to the project. A standard indicator is applicable to a
project if it addresses a result in the project’s results framework, and if planned activities target
that result.
Custom Indicators: additional project-specific performance indicators not included in the FAS
list of standard indicators.

This document includes guidance on the Food for Progress (FFPr), McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition (MGD), and Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) standard
indicators only. FAS uses standard indicators to measure progress in achieving FFPr, MGD, and LRP
program results, established in each program’s results frameworks. The FFPr, MGD, and LRP standard
indicators will allow FAS to report progress on all of its projects across result areas (i.e. literacy, good
health, nutrition and dietary practices, agricultural productivity, and trade) and countries. FAS will use
these data for meeting requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 1999,
and the GPRA Modernization Act, 2010. Standard indicators will also be used for reporting program
accomplishments in the USDA and FAS Strategic Plans, Congressional Budget Justifications, and for
reporting on USDA’s contribution to whole-of-government initiatives such as Feed the Future1 and the
Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development (READ) Act. 2 In order for USDA to meet these
reporting requirements, projects are required to include standard indicators in their PMPs when they
are relevant to the project’s results.
Standard indicators are classified as either output or outcome. Applicants may also propose custom,
project-specific input, output, outcome, or impact-level indicators. FAS defines these terms as follows:
Input Indicators: Indicators that measure or quantify the financial, human, and material resources used
to implement project activities or interventions.
1
2

For more information about the Feed the Future Initiative see: http://feedthefuture.gov/
For more information on the READ Act see: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/601

Output Indicators: Indicators that measure or quantify the products, goods, or services which directly
result from the implementation of project activities.
Outcome Indicators: Indicators that measure the intermediate effects of a project’s activity or set of
activities and are directly related to the output indicators.
Impact Indicators: Indicators that measure longer-term effects produced by a project’s activities or set
of activities.
Applicants must use all applicable standard indicators in their PMPs. Each standard indicator measures
one or more results in the FFPr, MGD, or LRP program results frameworks. If a project includes the
result in its project-level results framework, the corresponding standard indicator must be included in
the project’s PMP. During the agreement negotiation stage, FAS may provide further guidance on which
indicators are considered relevant. The standard indicator definitions provided in this document should
be used to inform the PMP. It is not necessary for an applicant to reproduce the entire indicator
definition in its PMP document, but reference to the standard indicator definition must be included (i.e.
the definitions section of a PMP may include: “please see FFPr or MGD Indicator #X”).
FAS requires PMPs to include performance indicators for all of the identified results in the project results
frameworks. However, in some cases, applicants may need to develop custom (project-specific)
indicators because the FAS standard indicators alone may not adequately measure all of a project’s
planned activities or intended results. Custom indicators may include organizational or stakeholderrelevant indicators that are key to monitoring project performance and accountability. See the FAD
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy for additional information on using standard and custom indicators in
PMPs. 3
Once applicants have identified all relevant standard and custom indicators, they should establish
numbers for their baselines and targets, and input those numbers into the FAS Food Aid Information
System (FAIS)4 . If a proposal is selected for an award, the list of applicable indicators will be finalized in
consultation with FAS staff during the agreement negotiation phase. After an agreement has been
signed, recipients will be required to report on their actual progress toward meeting their indicator
targets in FAIS.

BASELINES AND TARGETS
Food assistance projects must establish indicator baselines and targets, which will be used to regularly
measure performance. Initially, indicator baselines and targets are established in the project proposal.
They are then finalized, according to the FAD Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, following the approval
of the PMP, Evaluation Plan and submission of the baseline survey report. Recipients must seek an

3
4

http://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/resources/monitoring-and-evaluation-policy
https://www.fas.usda.gov/fais/public

amendment to their agreement in order to (a) finalize baselines and targets during the first year of the
project, or (b) amend indicators and targets at any other time during the life of the project.
Baseline information for all indicators must be measured and reported prior to the start of project
activities. For output indicators that count the number of services or goods provided, the baseline will
be zero. For example, the Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector
productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance (FFPr Standard Indicator 21) has a
baseline of zero because that activity or service was not provided previously. Outcomes that measure
an anticipated change in condition such as the Average student attendance in USDA supported
classrooms/schools (MGD Standard Indicator 2) require measuring the status of the condition, in this
case, the level of attendance, at baseline. Baselines for such indicators should always be greater than
zero. For these types of measures, projects should establish a baseline that is as close to the condition
prior to the start of project implementation as possible. For example, for projects funded in FY2018, the
baseline should be for the condition in FY2018, with activity implementation taking place in FY2019.
Where secondary data are being used to establish baselines (i.e. literacy tests) the baseline timeframe
may differ if data collection occurs at established intervals.
Annual and “life of project” (or “total for the agreement”) targets must be established for all standard
and custom indicators. Projects must follow guidance contained in this handbook for the disaggregation
required under each standard indicator, and establish disaggregation as necessary across custom
indicators. Annual targets must be established on a fiscal year basis (October 1 – September 30) unless
otherwise specified or negotiated. Established targets for planned activities should be ambitious, but
also realistic.
All standard indicators and their disaggregation, as specified in this guidance, including baselines and
targets, must be established and reported to FAS in FAIS. All standard indicators must be included in the
PMP and entered into FAIS using the exact wording of the standard indicator and its definition as it
appears in this guidance document. PMPs may include more detailed standard indicator definitions
such as project-specific information (i.e. data sources and measurement notes) as needed.

REPORTING
Food assistance projects are required to establish annual targets; however, projects are required to
report to FAS on a semi-annual basis. Projects must submit semi-annual reports based on the following
schedule:
Period covering

Report due date

October 1 – March 31

April 30

April 1 – September 30

October 30

Semi-annual reports are created and submitted through the “Compliance” tab at the top of the FAIS
page, and under “Agreement-level Reports” in the drop-down menu. If a disaggregation (such as
“Male/Female” or “New/Continuing”) is applicable to the project, projects must set and report on
targets. However, projects are not required to set targets for indicator disaggregation sub-types that do
not apply to the project. For example, if a project is introducing integrated pest management and
improved seeds, then Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance (FFPr Standard Indicator 4) should include
disaggregation related to crop genetics and pest and disease management relevant to the management
practice or technology type; however, the project would not include irrigation, livestock management,
or wild-caught fisheries management disaggregation since these are not management practices or
technology types applicable to the project.
The project should specify in the PMP which disaggregation(s) is relevant to the project, and recipients
will be expected to report actual data on each relevant disaggregation in their semi-annual reports to
FAS. Selecting appropriate indicators and disaggregations for each agreement is a collaborative effort
between award recipients and Food Assistance Division (FAD) staff during agreement negotiation.
Indicators are chosen, and all parties must ensure indicators are precisely entered in FAIS’ Performance
Reporting section. While the project’s activities are a key factor in indicator selection, the individual
agreement’s structure and indicator type may also play a role.
Where the data collection for a standard or custom indicator is expected to be too costly, infeasible, or
unrealistic given the nature of the indicator or existing data collection plans and resources, recipients
may propose an alternative data collection schedule. Projects must also include a narrative in the
“comments” section of the semi-annual performance report describing trends in the data, reasons for
significant differences between the actual data and targets, any data discrepancies or nuances in the
data, reasons for not reporting data or reporting zero, or any other explanations of project performance,
as appropriate.

FOOD FOR PROGRESS STANDARD INDICATORS SUMMARY
Indicator
Number

Result #

FFPr SO1

FFPr 1.1

FFPr 1.2/
1.3

FFPr 1.2.3
/2.2.3.1
/2.3.1.1

FFPr 1.2.3
/2.2.3.1
/2.3.1.1
FFPr 1.2.3
/2.2.3.1
/2.3.1.1

Title in FFPr Results
Framework

Increased Agricultural
Productivity

Improved Quality of Land
and Water Resources
Increased Use of
Improved Agricultural
Techniques and
Technologies / Improved
Farm Management
Increased Use of
Improved Agricultural
Techniques and
Technologies / Improved
Farm Management

Indicator
Type

Frequency of
Reporting

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

outcome

Yield of targeted agricultural commodities
among program participants with USDA
assistance

Total
Production/
Units of
Production

outcome

Number of hectares under improved
management practices or technologies that
promote improved climate risk reduction
and/or natural resources management with
USDA assistance

Hectares

Annual

Hectares

Annual

outcome

Indicator

Number of hectares under improved
management practices or technologies with
USDA assistance

Annual

outcome

Number of individuals in the agriculture system
who have applied improved management
practices or technologies with USDA assistance

Number

Annual

Increased Use of Financial
Services

output

Number of individuals accessing agriculturerelated financing as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Annual

Increased Use of Financial
Services

output

Number of individuals participating in groupbased savings, micro-finance or lending
programs with USDA assistance

Number

Annual

Increased Use of Financial
Services

output

Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Biannual

Indicator
Number

Result #

Title in FFPr Results
Framework

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency of
Reporting

FFPr 1.2.3
/2.2.3.1
/2.3.1.1

Increased Use of Financial
Services

output

Value of agriculture-related financing accessed
as a result of USDA assistance

US Dollars

Annual

FFPr 1.2.4

Increased Knowledge of
Improved Agricultural
Techniques and
Technologies

output

Number of technologies, practices, and
approaches under various phases of research,
development, and uptake as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Annual

FFPr 1.4.1
/2.4.1

Increased Capacity of
Government Institutions

output

Number of individuals who have received
USDA-supported degree-granting non-nutritionrelated food security training

Number

Annual

FFPr 1.4.1
/2.4.1

Increased Capacity of
Government Institutions

output

Number of host government or communityderived risk management plans formally
proposed, adopted, implemented or
institutionalized with USDA assistance

Number

Annual

FFPr 1.4.4
/2.4.4

Improved Capacity of Key
Groups in the Agriculture
Production Sector

outcome

Number of organizations with increased
performance improvement with USDA
assistance

Number

Annual

FFPr 1.4.5
/2.4.5

Increased Leverage of
Private Sector Resources

output

Number of public-private partnerships formed
as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

FFPr
1.4.5/2.4.
5 and 2.2

Increase leverage of
private sector resources /
Increased Access to
Markets to Sell
Agricultural Products

outcome

Value of new USG commitments and new public
and private sector investment leveraged by
USDA to support food security and nutrition

US Dollars

Annual

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency of
Reporting

FFPr 2.2
and 2.3
/2.2.3
/2.3.1

Increased Access to
Markets to Sell
Agricultural Products /
Improved Transaction
Efficiency / Improved
Market and Trade
Infrastructure

output

Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as
a result of USDA assistance

Kilometers

Biannual

FFPr 2.1.2.2

Improved Post-Harvest
Infrastructure

output

Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry
or cold storage) as a result of USDA assistance

Cubic Meters

Biannual

FFPr 2.4.2
and
2.1.1.1

output and
outcome

Number of policies, regulations and/or
administrative procedures in each of the
following stages of development as a result of
USDA assistance

Number

Annual

FFPr SO1
and SO2

outcome

Value of annual sales of farms and firms
receiving USDA assistance

U.S. Dollar

Annual

FFPr SO1
and SO2

outcome

Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms
receiving USDA assistance

Metric Tons

Annual

FFPr SO1
and SO2

outcome

Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

FFPr SO1
and SO2

Number of individuals who have received shortterm agricultural sector productivity or food
security training as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

Indicator
Number

Result #

Title in FFPr Results
Framework

Improved Policy &
Regulatory Framework /
Increased Adoption of
Established Standards by
Industry
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products

output

Indicator
Number

Result #

FFPr SO1
and SO2

Title in FFPr Results
Framework
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products
Increased Agricultural
Productivity/Expanded
Trade of Agricultural
Products

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency of
Reporting

output

Number of individuals participating in USDA
food security programs

Number

Annual

output

Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from
USDA-funded interventions

Number

Annual

output

Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries
participating in productive safety nets

Number

Annual

FOOD FOR PROGRESS STANDARD INDICATOR DEFINITIONS
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr INDICATOR 1: Yield of targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USDA
assistance
DEFINITION: Yield is a measure of the total output of production of an agricultural commodity (crop,
fish, milk, eggs, live animal offtake[1]) divided by the total number of units in production (hectares
planted of crops, area in hectares for pond aquaculture, cubic meters of cage for cage aquaculture,
maximum number of animals in the herd/flock during the reporting year for live animals, maximum
number of producing cows or hens during the reporting year for dairy or eggs). Yield per hectare, per
animal, and per cubic meter of cage is a measure of productivity from that farm, fisheries, or livestock
activity from USDA-assisted producers.
Yield is calculated from the following data points, reported as totals across all activity participants, and
disaggregated by commodity, then by sex and age of the producer:
•

Total Production (TP): Kg, mt, number, or other unit by participants during the reporting period;

•

Total Units of Production (UP): Area planted in ha (for crops); Area in ha (for aquaculture
ponds); Maximum number of animals in herd (for live animals); Maximum number of animals in
production (for dairy or eggs); Cubic meters of cages (for open water aquaculture) for
participants during the reporting year.

Yield per hectare, per animal, or per cubic meter of cage = TP/UP
If there is more than one production cycle in the reporting year, the data points for total production (TP)
and units of production (UP) should be counted (and summed) each time the land is cultivated, animal
products are produced, or the cages are used if the same commodity was produced. The sum of TP
divided by the sum of UP will provide an estimate of the average yield achieved across the different
production cycles.
Total production is the amount that is produced, regardless of how it was ultimately used. It also
includes any postharvest loss (i.e. postharvest loss should not be subtracted from total production.)
The preferred units for TP by commodity type are:
• Crops: metric tons
• Pond aquaculture: kilograms
• Cage aquaculture: kilograms
• Dairy: liters of milk
• Eggs: number of eggs
• Livestock: weight in kilograms of entire live animals which were offtake
The required units for UP by commodity type are:
• Crops: hectare
• Tree crops: hectare is recommended[2]
• Pond aquaculture: hectare of surface area
• Cage aquaculture: cubic meter of cage
• Dairy: maximum number of producing animals during the reporting year
11

•
•

Eggs: maximum number of producing hens during the reporting year
Livestock: maximum number in herd, flock, or other group during the reporting year.

For partners working in livestock value chains, there is an additional disaggregation of livestock
production system to support meaningful analysis of outcomes. There are four production systems:
Rangeland; rural mixed crop-livestock; urban/peri-urban; and intensive commercial livestock
production.
•
•
•
•

Rangelands (pastoral, transhumant, agro-pastoral, sylvo-pastoral, and extensive grasslands)
Rural mixed crop-livestock (ruminants, pigs and poultry and small stock such as rabbits and
guinea pigs and animals kept principally for traction including oxen, buffalo and equids)
Urban/peri-urban (including poultry, small scale dairy, small and large ruminants, pigs, microstock, small scale fattening operations)
Intensive, commercial livestock production (large pig and poultry production units, also
includes ruminant fattening, large dairying and large scale dry lots). Scale of operation, level of
technical inputs and capital investment distinguishes from the urban/peri-urban category).

Yield targets should be entered at the commodity level and at the sex and age level under each
commodity. Targets do not need to be set for the TP and UP data points.
[1] Offtake quantity includes the entire weight of all live animals that were sold, slaughtered, gifted or
exchanged, including those for home consumption.
[2] For tree crops, Number of hectares is recommended as UP, however, Number of trees can also be
selected for UP.
RATIONALE: Yield of farms, fisheries, and livestock is a key driver of agricultural productivity and can
serve as a proxy of the overall productivity of these value chains and the impact of interventions when
the trend is evaluated over a series of years, and/or appropriate covariates such as inter-annual weather
conditions are included in the analysis. Improving the yield for farm commodities contributes to
increasing agricultural GDP, can increase income when other components of agricultural productivity
are in place (e.g., post-harvest storage, value addition and processing, markets), and can therefore
contribute to increasing sustainable productivity and reducing poverty.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
See Definition for
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually, recommended to
preferred units of
collect close to post-harvest to
measure by
optimize recall
commodity type.
DISAGGREGATION:
For crops:
FIRST LEVEL
Commodity: Type of crop. Note: Horticultural product-specific disaggregation is not required for this
indicator. The overall “horticulture” commodity disaggregate can be used if desired.
SECOND LEVEL
Farm size: Smallholder, Non-smallholder
THIRD LEVEL
Sex: Male, female
12

Age: 15-29, 30+
For aquaculture:
FIRST LEVEL
Commodity: Type of fish – freshwater or marine.
SECOND LEVEL
Sex: Male, female
Age: 15-29, 30+
For livestock:
FIRST LEVEL
Commodity: Type of animal or animal product
SECOND LEVEL
Production system: Agro-pastoral/extensive grassland; small-holder mixed livestock-crop;
urban/peri-urban; and intensive industrial
THIRD LEVEL
Sex: Male, female
Age: 15-29, 30+
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participant farmer/fisher/rancher sample surveys; data collection
through producer organizations or farm records; routine activity records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baselines are required. Baseline data reflects the yield of targeted commodities in the
year prior to programming. If that information is not available, yield information collected during the
activity’s first year can serve as baseline.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3-10,-11,For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
12]
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.1: Improved Quality of Land and Water
Agricultural Productivity
Resources
FFPr INDICATOR 2: Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies that
promote improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management with USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the area in hectares where USDA-promoted management
practices or improved technologies that reduce climate risk and improve land, marine, and other natural
resources management were applied during the reporting year to areas managed or cultivated by
producers participating in a USDA-funded activity.
Management practices counted are agriculture-related, land- or water-based management practices
and technologies in sectors such as cultivation of food or fiber, aquaculture, fisheries, and livestock
management that address climate change adaptation and mitigation, specifically including those that
seek to bring about benefits relating to climate change adaptation/climate risk management, climate
mitigation, and improved natural resource and ecosystem management. Improved management
practices or technologies are those promoted by the Recipient as a way to increase producer’s
productivity directly or to support stronger and better functioning systems.
This indicator reports on the unique number of hectares from a subset of three indicator disaggregates
of FFPr Standard Indicator 3 Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies
with USDA assistance management practice category disaggregates. The examples under each category
below are illustrative but not exhaustive.
•

Natural resource or ecosystem management: e.g. biodiversity conservation; strengthening of
ecosystem services, including stream bank management or restoration or re/afforestation;
woodlot management.
• Climate mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to
other alternatives (while preventing leakage of emissions elsewhere). Examples include low- or
no-till practices; restoration of organic soils and degraded lands; efficient nitrogen fertilizer use;
practices that promote methane reduction; agroforestry; introduction/expansion of perennials;
practices that promote greater resource use efficiency (e.g. drip irrigation).
• Climate adaptation/climate risk management: technologies promoted with the explicit
objective of reducing risk and minimizing the severity of climate change. Examples include
drought and flood resistant varieties; short-duration varieties; adjustment of sowing time;
diversification, use of perennial varieties; agroforestry.
RATIONALE: This indicator tracks application of practices that can support producers and the
landscapes where they live to proactively protect themselves against climate disturbances while
promoting better management and improved quality of land and water resources. Improved
management practices on agriculture land, in aquaculture and in freshwater and marine fisheries
relating to improved natural resource or ecosystem management and those practices that bring benefits
related to climate mitigation and climate adaptation are critical for ensuring that smallholder producers
and their communities are taking steps to safeguard themselves against climate and weather
disturbances.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Hectares
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
14

None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Sample survey of activity participants, activity or association records,
reports from activity partners, farm records. If a sample survey of participants is conducted, data may
be collected through participant interviews and/or direct observations of measures of participants’ land.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: The baseline is the area under improved management practices and technologies that
support improved climate risk reduction and/or natural resources management that are promoted by
the activity at the start of the activity.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-28]
The data for this specific indicator is derived from three disaggregates from
indicator FFPr Standard Indicator 3 (FtF EG.3.2-25). Recipients are expected to
report on the unique number of hectares within these three disaggregates to
avoid double counting. For example, if a Recipient is reporting on the improved
management practices and technologies for the same hectare under two or all of
these three disaggregates, that hectare should be counted only once.
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
Agricultural Productivity

FFPr 1.2: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural
Techniques and Technologies
FFPr 1.3: Improved Farm Management
FFPr INDICATOR 3: Number of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with
USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the area in hectares where USDA-promoted management
practices or improved technologies were applied during the reporting year to areas managed or
cultivated by producers participating in a USDA-funded activity. Management practices counted are
agriculture-related, land- or water-based management practices and technologies in sectors such as
cultivation of food or fiber, aquaculture, fisheries, and livestock management, including those that
address climate change adaptation and mitigation. Improved management practices or technologies are
those promoted by the recipient as a way to increase producer’s productivity directly or to support
stronger and better functioning systems. Significant improvements to existing technologies should be
counted.
The application of both intensive and extensive agriculture-related management practices and
technologies in different landscapes are captured under the Type of Hectare disaggregate. The Type of
Hectare disaggregates are: crop land, cultivated pasture, rangeland, conservation/protected area,
freshwater or marine ecosystems, aquaculture, and other[1]. Those interventions carried out on crop
land, cultivated pasture and aquaculture are considered “intensive”. Those carried on rangeland,
conservation/protected area and freshwater or marine ecosystems are considered “extensive”. The
same area cannot be counted under more than one Type of Hectare disaggregate category.
Management practice and technology type categories, with some illustrative (not exhaustive) examples,
include:
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Crop genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding or higher in nutritional
content (e.g. through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or highprotein maize), and/or more resilient to climate impacts (e.g. drought tolerant maize or stress
tolerant rice); improved germplasm.
Cultural practices: context specific agronomic practices that do not fit in other categories, e.g.
seedling production and transplantation; cultivation practices such as planting density, crop
rotation, and mounding.
Livestock management: e.g. improved grazing practices, improved fodder crop, cultivation of
dual purpose crops.
Wild-caught fisheries management: e.g. sustainable fishing practices.
Aquaculture management: e.g. pond culture; pond preparation; management of carrying
capacity.
Natural resource or ecosystem management: e.g. biodiversity conservation; strengthening of
ecosystem services, including stream bank management or restoration or re/afforestation;
woodlot management.
Pest and disease management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; improved fungicides;
appropriate application of fungicides; improved and environmentally sustainable use of cultural,
physical, biological, and chemical insecticides and pesticides; crop rotation; alflatoxin prevention
and control during production.
Soil-related fertility and conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil
management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil
16

•
•
•

•

amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter, mulching); improved
fertilizer; improved fertilizer use practices; inoculant; erosion control.
Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.
Agriculture water management - non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; sustainable water
use practices; practices that improve water quality.
Climate mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to
other alternatives (while preventing leakage of emissions elsewhere). Examples include low- or
no-till practices; restoration of organic soils and degraded lands; efficient nitrogen fertilizer use;
practices that promote methane reduction; agroforestry; introduction/expansion of perennials;
practices that promote greater resource use efficiency (e.g. drip irrigation).
Climate adaptation/climate risk management: technologies promoted with the explicit objective
of reducing risk and minimizing the severity of climate change. Examples include drought and
flood resistant varieties; short-duration varieties; adjustment of sowing time; diversification, use
of perennial varieties; agroforestry.
Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation; non-market- and non-climaterelated information technology; improved record keeping; improved budgeting and financial
management; Improved capacity to repair agricultural equipment; improved quality of
agricultural products or technology.

If a lead farmer cultivates a plot used for training, e.g a demonstration plot used for Farmer Field Days
or Farmer Field School, the area of the demonstration plot should be counted under this indicator, and
the farmer counted under FFPr Standard Indicator 4 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who
have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance. However, if the
demonstration or training plot is cultivated by extensionists or researchers, e.g. a demonstration plot in
a research institute, neither the area nor the extensionist/researcher should be counted under the
respective indicators.
This is a snapshot indicator, which is designed to capture area under improved management practices
and technologies only for the reporting year. The baseline is the area under improved management
practices and technologies promoted by the activity at the start of the activity. The area under the
USDA activity-promoted practice or technology during the project period still gets counted in any
subsequent years the practice or technology is applied. However, this also means that yearly totals can
NOT be summed to count unique hectares under improved management practices and technologies
over the life of the project.
Recipients may use sales data from assisted firms for some kinds of inputs to estimate the number of
producers for FFPr Standard Indicator 4 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have
applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance and Indicator 3 Number
of hectares under improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance if they use
clearly documented assumptions that are regularly validated through spot surveys or similar methods.
For example, a Recipient working to strengthen the certified soy seed market within a defined market
area could use data on the number and volume of certified soy seed sales by assisted firms during the
reporting year to estimate the number of farmers applying certified soy seed (for example, by using a
conservative assumption that one sales equals one farmer applying) and hectares under certified seed
by assuming a periodically validated planting density. All assumptions underlying the indicator
estimates should be documented annually in an Indicator Comment.

For cultivated cropland, these three indicators Number of hectares under improved management
practices or technologies with USDA assistance, Number of individuals in the agriculture system who
have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance, and Yield of
targeted agricultural commodities among program participants with USDA assistance (FFPr Standard
Indicators 3, 4, and 1, respectively) only capture results for land that is individually managed. However,
communally- or group-managed areas under extensive ”Type of Hectares” disaggregates, such as
conservation landscapes or rangeland, can be reported under Standard Indicator 3 under the
association-applied category under the Sex and Age disaggregate. Association-applied would be
applicable for landscapes where communities or organizations develop and adhere to policies regarding
management, harvest, protection, etc.
[1] Type of hectare disaggregates defined as:
•

Crop land: areas used for the production of crops for harvest, including cultivated, harvested,
fallow or crop failure. Include home gardens in this category.
• Cultivated pasture: land where forage crops are primarily grown for grazing.
• Rangelands: land on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential plant community)
is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use.
• Conservation/protected areas: terrestrial areas that are protected because of their recognized,
natural, ecological, or cultural values. The protected status may fall into different categories
and include strictly protected to those that allow for some limited human occupation and/or
sustainable use of natural resources, such as agroforestry, collection of NTFPs, etc.
• Fresh-water or marine ecosystems: aquatic areas that include freshwater, such as lakes, ponds,
rivers, streams, springs, and freshwater wetlands, and water with higher salt content, such as
salt marshes, mangroves, estuaries and bays, oceans, and marine wetlands.
• Aquaculture: areas dedicated to the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of aquatic animals and
plants for food. All types of fisheries should be estimated in hectares, not cubic meters, for the
purpose of aggregation across projects.
• Other: Areas that don’t fit into these categories. Please describe the Hectare type in the
indicator comment.
RATIONALE: Tracks successful adoption of technologies and management practices in an effort to
improve agricultural productivity, agricultural water productivity, sustainability, and resilience to climate
impacts.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Hectares
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Type of Hectare:
• Crop land,
• Cultivated pasture,
• Rangeland,
• Conservation/protected area,
• Freshwater or marine ecosystems;
• Aquaculture,
• Other
18

SECOND LEVEL:
Sex: Male, Female, Association-applied
Age: 15-29, 30+, Association-applied
Management practice or technology type (see description, above): Crop genetics, Cultural practices,
Livestock management, Wild-caught fisheries management, Aquaculture management, Natural resource
or ecosystem management, Pest and disease management, Soil-related fertility and conservation,
Irrigation, Agriculture water management-non-irrigation based, Climate mitigation, Climate
adaptation/climate risk management, Other
Commodity:
Type of crop, type of animal or animal product, type of fish – freshwater or marine, or “Disaggregates
not available”
Note: Horticultural product-specific disaggregation is not required for this indicator. The overall
“horticulture” commodity disaggregate can be used if desired.
Activities promoting sustainable intensification or those where multiple commodities are involved
where counting hectares is complicated and not meaningful are not required to disaggregate by
commodity, and should use the "Disaggregates not available" category under the Commodities
disaggregate.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Sample survey of activity participants, activity or association records,
reports from activity partners, farm records. If a sample survey of participants is conducted, data may
be collected through participant interviews and/or direct observations of measures of participants’ land.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Since it is very common for FFPr activities to promote more than one improved management practice or
technology, this indicator allows the tracking of the number of hectares under the different
management practices and technology types and the total unique number of hectares on which one or
more practices or technologies has been applied at the activity level.
• If a participant applied more than one improved technology during the reporting year, count
that area on which the participant applied those technologies under each relevant Management
Practice type applied under the relevant Hectare type. However, count the area only once in
the applicable Sex, Age and Commodity disaggregate categories under the relevant Hectare
type. This will not result in double-counting for the total in FTFMS.
• If an activity is promoting a single technology for multiple benefits, the area under the
technology may be reported under each relevant category under the Management
Practice/Technology Type disaggregate. For example, drought tolerant seeds could be reported
under Crop genetics and Climate adaptation/climate risk management depending for what
purpose(s) or benefit(s) the activity was promoted.
• If a participant cultivates a plot of land more than once in the reporting year, the area should be
counted each time one or more improved management practice/technology is applied. For
example, because of access to irrigation as a result of a FFPr activity, a farmer can now cultivate
two cycles of crops instead of one. If the farmer applies USDA-promoted technologies on
19

her/his plot for the two cycles, the area of the plot would be counted twice under this indicator.
Note that the farmer would only be counted once under Standard Indicator 4 Number of
individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management practices or
technologies with USDA assistance.
For example: An activity supports dissemination of improved seed, Integrated Pest Management, and
drip irrigation. During the reporting year, a total of 1,000 hectares were under improved technologies:
800 with improved seed, 600 with IPM and 950 with drip irrigation.
There should be a clear link between Indicator 3, the Number of hectares under improved management
practices and technologies and Indicator 4, the Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have
applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance. If a producer applied
improved management practices and technologies to his/her land, then the producer would be counted
under Indicator 4 and the # of hectares s/he applied the new techniques or technologies on would be
counted in Indicator 3.
BASELINE INFO: The baseline is the area under improved management practices and technologies
promoted by the activity at the start of the activity.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-25]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
Agricultural Productivity

FFPr 1.2: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural
Techniques and Technologies
FFPr 1.3: Improved Farm Management
FFPr INDICATOR 4: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the total number of agriculture system actors participating in
USDA-funded activities who have applied improved management practices and/or technologies
promoted by USDA anywhere within the food and agriculture system during the reporting year. These
individuals can include:
•

•
•
•

Farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and nonfood crops, livestock and
livestock products, fish and other fisheries/aquaculture products, agro-forestry products, and
natural resource-based products, including non-timber forest products such as fruits, seeds, and
resins;
Individuals in the private sector, such as entrepreneurs, input suppliers, traders, processors,
manufacturers, distributors, service providers, and wholesalers and retailers;
Individuals in government, such as policy makers, extension workers and natural resource
managers;
Individuals in civil society, such as researchers or academics and non-governmental and
community organization staff.

The indicator tracks those individuals who are changing their behavior while participating in USDAfunded activities. Individuals who attended training or were exposed to a new technology do not count
under this indicator unless the individual actually applies what she/he learned.
Improved management practices or technologies are those promoted by the recipient as a way to
increase agriculture productivity or support stronger and better functioning systems. The improved
management practices and technologies are agriculture-related.
Management practice and technology type categories, with some illustrative (not exhaustive) examples,
include:
•

•
•

Crop genetics: e.g. improved/certified seed that could be higher-yielding, higher in nutritional
content (e.g. through bio-fortification, such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, highprotein maize), and/or more resilient to climate impacts (e.g. drought tolerant maize, or stress
tolerant rice); improved germplasm.
Cultural practices: context specific agronomic practices that do not fit in other categories, e.g.
seedling production and transplantation; cultivation practices such as planting density, crop
rotation, and mounding.
Livestock management: e.g. improved livestock breeds; livestock health services and products
such as vaccines; improved livestock handling practices and housing; improved feeding
practices; improved grazing practices, improved waste management practices, improved fodder
crop, cultivation of dual purpose crops.
Wild-caught fisheries management: e.g. sustainable fishing practices; improved nets, hooks,
lines, traps, dredges, trawls; improved hand gathering, netting, angling, spearfishing, and
trapping practices.
Aquaculture management: e.g. improved fingerlings; improved feed and feeding practices; fish
21

•
•

•

•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•

health and disease control; improved cage culture; improved pond culture; pond preparation;
sampling and harvesting; management of carrying capacity.
Natural resource or ecosystem management: e.g. terracing, rock lines; fire breaks; biodiversity
conservation; strengthening of ecosystem services, including stream bank management or
restoration or re/afforestation; woodlot management.
Pest and disease management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; improved fungicides;
appropriate application of fungicides; improved and environmentally sustainable use of cultural,
physical, biological, and chemical insecticides and pesticides; crop rotation; aflatoxin prevention
and control.
Soil-related fertility and conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil
management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil
amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter, mulching); improved
fertilizer; improved fertilizer use practices; inoculant; erosion control.
Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.
Agriculture water management - non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; sustainable water
use practices; practices that improve water quality.
Climate mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to
other alternatives (while preventing leakage of emissions elsewhere). Examples include low- or
no-till practices; restoration of organic soils and degraded lands; efficient nitrogen fertilizer use;
practices that promote methane reduction; agroforestry; introduction/expansion of perennials;
practices that promote greater resource use efficiency (e.g. drip irrigation, upgrades of
agriculture infrastructure and supply chains).
Climate adaptation/climate risk management: technologies promoted with the explicit objective
of reducing risk and minimizing the severity of the impacts of climate change. Examples include
drought and flood resistant varieties; short-duration varieties; adjustment of sowing time;
agricultural/climate forecasting; early warning systems; diversification, use of perennial
varieties; agroforestry; risk insurance.
Marketing and distribution: e.g. contract farming technologies and practices; improved input
purchase technologies and practices; improved commodity sale technologies and practices;
improved market information system technologies and practices.
Post-harvest handling and storage: e.g. improved transportation; decay and insect control;
temperature and humidity control; improved quality control technologies and practices; sorting
and grading, sanitary handling practices.
Value-added processing: e.g. improved packaging practices and materials including
biodegradable packaging; food and chemical safety technologies and practices; improved
preservation technologies and practices.
Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation; non-market- and non-climaterelated information technology; improved record keeping; improved budgeting and financial
management; Improved capacity to repair agricultural equipment; improved quality of
agricultural products or technology.

This indicator endeavors to capture the individuals who have made the decision to apply a particular
management practice or technology, not those who have had to do so as a condition of employment or
an obligation.
RATIONALE: Improved management practices and technological change and adoption by different
actors in the agricultural system will be critical to increasing agricultural productivity and supporting
stronger and better functioning systems.
22

UNIT OF MEASURE:
Number: Individuals

INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
Outcome
Higher is better

FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30

DISAGGREGATION:
DISAGGREGATE BY:
FIRST LEVEL
Value chain actor type:
• Smallholder producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and
nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural
resource-based products)
• Non-smallholder producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food
and nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural
resource-based products)
• People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers)
• People in private sector firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers)
• People in civil society (e.g. staff and volunteers from non-governmental organizations,
community-based organizations, research and academic organizations)
• Others
Note: Only count producers under the "Producers" disaggregate and not the "Private Sector Firms"
disaggregate to avoid double-counting. While private sector firms are considered part of civil society
more broadly, only count them under the "Private Sector Firms" disaggregate and not the "Civil
Society" disaggregate to avoid double-counting.
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats: five
adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20 layers
and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
SECOND LEVEL
Sex: Male, Female
Age: 15-29, 30+
Management practice or technology type: Crop genetics, Cultural practices, Livestock
management, Wild-caught fisheries management, Aquaculture management, Natural resource
or ecosystem management, Pest and disease management, Soil-related fertility and
conservation, Irrigation, Agriculture water management-non-irrigation based, Climate
mitigation, Climate adaptation/climate risk management, Marketing and distribution, Post harvest handling and storage, Value-added processing, Other
Commodity:
Type of crop, type of animal or animal product, type of fish – freshwater or marine, or
“Disaggregate not applicable”.
Note: Horticultural product-specific disaggregation is not required for this indicator. The overall
23

“horticulture” commodity disaggregate can be used if desired.
Activities promoting sustainable intensification or those where multiple commodities are
involved (e.g. transportation), where counting participants by commodity is complicated and/or
not meaningful are not required to disaggregate participants by commodity, and should use the
"Disaggregate not applicable" category under the Commodity disaggregate.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected via sample survey of participants, census of
private sector/government participants, project or association records, farm records,
company/organization records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: All significant improvements to existing techniques or technologies should be
counted. In a case where, for example, an individual applies more than one innovation as a result of
USDA assistance, count the individual once in the applicable Value chain actor type, Sex, and Age
disaggregate categories. If more than one participant in a household is applying improved technologies,
count all the adult participants. Individuals should only be counted once per reporting year under the
Value chain actor type, Sex, and Age disaggregate categories.
Since it is common for USDA-funded activities to promote more than one improved technology or
management practice to producers and other individuals, this indicator allows the tracking of the total
number of participants that apply any improved management practice or technology during the
reporting year and the tracking of the total number of participants that apply practices or technologies
in specific management practice and technology type categories.
•
•

•

Count the participant if they have applied a management practice or technology promoted with
USDA assistance at least once in the reporting year.
Count each participant only once per year in the applicable Sex disaggregate category and Age
disaggregate category to track the number of individuals applying USDA-promoted management
practices or technology types. If more than one participant in a household is applying improved
technologies, count each participant in the household who does so.
Under the Commodity disaggregate, count each participant once under each commodity for
which they apply a USDA-promoted management practice or technology type. For example, if a
participant uses USDA-promoted improved seed for the focus commodities of maize and
legume, count that participant once under maize and once under legumes.
Count each individual once per management practice or technology type once per year under
the appropriate Management practice/technology type disaggregate. Individuals can be
counted under a number of different Management practices/technology types in a reporting
year.

This indicator counts individuals who applied improved management practices and technologies learned
through training provided through USDA assistance. Therefore, there should be a clear link between
Indicator 4, Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved management
practices or technologies with USDA assistance and Indicator 21, Number of individuals who have
received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training.
Furthermore, there should be a clear link between Indicator 3, Number of hectares under improved
24

management practices or technologies and Indicator 4, Number of individuals in the agriculture system
who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance. If a farmer
applied improved management practices or technologies to his/her land, then the farmer would be
counted under Indicator 4 and the # of hectares s/he applied the improved management practices or
technologies on would be counted in Indicator 3.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is the number of participant producers and other actors applying improved
management practices or technologies promoted by the activity at the start of the activity.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-24]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.2.3/2.2.3.1/2.3.1.1: Increased Use of
Agricultural Productivity
Financial Services
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 5: Number of individuals accessing agriculture-related financing as a result of USDA
assistance
DEFINITION: Total number of agricultural producers (individual farmers, fishers, cooperatives, etc.),
input suppliers, transporters, processors, other Micro, Small and Medium enterprises (MSME), and
larger enterprises that are in a targeted agricultural value chain and are participating in a USDA-funded
activity that access agriculture-related financing with USDA assistance. This indicator counts individuals
accessing debt (both cash and in-kind loans) and non-debt financing.
USDA assistance may consist of technical assistance, full or partial guarantee provision, insurance
coverage, or other capacity-building and market-strengthening activities to producers, organizations and
enterprises.
Debt: Count individuals accessing cash loans and of in-kind lending. For cash loans, count only
individuals accessing credit through formally registered financial institutions[1]. The institutions can be
of any size from microfinance institutions to national commercial banks, as well as any non-deposit
taking financial institutions and other types of financial NGOs. In-kind lending in agriculture is the
provision of services, inputs, or other goods up front, with payment in the form of product (value of
service, input, or other good provided plus interest) or cash provided at the end of the season.
Assumptions used to calculate the value of in-kinds loans should be documented and made available for
data quality assessments.
Non-Debt: Count individuals accessing any financing other than cash loans and in-kind lending.
Examples include: equity, convertible debt, or other equity-like investments, which can be made by local
or international investors; and leasing, which may be extended by local banks or specialized leasing
companies.
[1] Individuals accessing agriculture-related financing through informal groups are not included because
this indicator is attempting to capture the systems-level changes that occur through increased access to
formal financial services.
RATIONALE: Increased access to and utilization of finance will help expand markets and trade, which
will, in turn, expand agricultural productivity.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Type of financing accessed: Debt
SECOND LEVEL
Type of debt: Cash, In-kind
Size of recipient: Individuals/microenterprises; Small and medium enterprises; Large enterprises
26

and corporations.
Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises
employed 10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large
enterprises and corporations employed >250 individuals.
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
If the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be used for
classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm as Male if
all of the proprietors are male, as Female if all of the proprietors are female, and as
Mixed if the proprietors are male and female.
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
If the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the age of the proprietor should be used for
classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm as 15-29 if
all of the proprietors are aged 15-29, as 30+ if all of the proprietors are aged 30+, and as
Mixed if the proprietors are from both age groups.
FIRST LEVEL
Type of financing accessed: Non-debt
SECOND LEVEL
Size of recipient: Individuals/microenterprises; Small and medium enterprises; Large enterprises
and corporations.
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected through a survey of targeted individuals of FFPr
projects, review of bank/financial institution or USDA records, or survey of financial institutions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The indicator does not measure the value of the assistance but the number of
individuals who accessed financing as a result of USDA assistance. Count each individual only once per
reporting year within each financial product category (debt and non-debt), even if the individual
accessed financing multiple times in the reporting year. However, an individual may be counted under
each financial product category (debt and non-debt) if both types of financing were accessed during the
reporting year. Individuals participating in group-based savings, lending or microfinance programs
should be counted under Indicator 6.
Indicator 5 measures the number of individuals accessing financing. Indicator 7 measures the number of
loans disbursed to farmers and others, and Indicator 8 measures the value of agriculture-related
financing accessed by producers and other value chain participants.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
27

to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-27]
FtF collects this information as part of the Value of agriculture-related financing
indicator. In order to capture this data in USDA’s database system, a separate
indicator on volume has been developed.
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased Agricultural
FFPr 1.2.3, 2.2.3.1, 2.3.1.1:
Productivity
Increased Use of Financial Services
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural
Products
FFPr INDICATOR 6: Number of individuals participating in group-based savings, micro-finance or lending
programs with USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator tracks individual participation in group-based savings, microfinance, or
lending programs. This performance indicator tracks financial inclusion and captures the uptake of
financial services by the participants of USDA-funded activities.
Group-based savings programs are formal or informal community programs that serve as a mechanism
for people in poor communities with otherwise limited access to financial services to pool their savings.
The specific composition and function of the savings groups vary and can include rotating loan
disbursement. The definition is inclusive of all of the different types of group-based savings programs,
including programs that promote mobile savings. Participants in village savings and lending associations
assisted by USDA should be counted under this indicator.
It should be noted that the indicator captures the numbers who are participating but does not say
anything about the intensity of participation. Furthermore, while summing the number of individuals
participating in savings and credit programs is acceptable as a measure of financial inclusion, saving and
credit are functionally different and the numbers participating in each type of program should not be
compared against each other. Savings groups have added benefits, like fostering social capital, that also
contribute to resilience and a household’s ability to manage risk and protect their well-being.
RATIONALE: Access to group-based savings, microfinance, or lending programs is one pathway to a
household's financial inclusion. Access to financial services is important for households to diversify their
livelihood strategies, protect well-being outcomes and manage risks.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Female, Male
Age: 15-29, 30+
Product Type: Savings, Credit
Duration:
• New = participated in a savings, micro-finance or lending program for the first time in the
reporting year
• Continuing = participated in a savings, micro-finance or lending program in a previous reporting
year and continues to participate in a savings, micro-finance or lending program in the current
reporting year
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participant-based survey, activity records.
29

MEASUREMENT NOTES:
If someone participates in both savings and credit programs they should be counted for both of the
product type disaggregates, but only once for the age, sex, and duration disaggregates.
Individuals should be reported in the “new” duration disaggregate in the first reporting year they
participate, and in the “continuing” duration disaggregate in any subsequent reporting years in which
they participate.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.4.2-7]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the
Feed the Future Indicator Handbook
(https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.2.3/2.2.3.1/2.3.1.1: Increased Use of
Agricultural Productivity
Financial Services
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 7: Number of loans disbursed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator captures the number of loans made/disbursed during the reporting year as a
result of USDA assistance to producers, input suppliers, transporters, processors, other MSMEs, and
larger enterprises that are in a targeted agricultural value chain.
The indicator counts loans disbursed to the recipient not loans merely in process (e.g. loan applications,
loan applications approved but not yet available to the recipient). Count cash loans and the value of inkind lending. For cash loans, count only loans made by financial institutions and not by informal groups
such as village savings and loan groups that are not formally registered as a financial institution. [1] The
loans counted can be made by any size financial institution from microfinance institutions to national
commercial banks, as well as non-deposit taking financial institutions and other types of financial NGOs.
The number of loans accessed through informal groups is not included because this indicator is
attempting to capture the systems-level changes that occur through increased access to formal financial
services.
RATIONALE: Making more financial loans shows that there is improved access to business development
and financial services. This, in turn, will help expand markets and trade and should also contribute to
increased agricultural productivity.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Loans
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected through a survey of targeted individuals of FFPr
projects, a review of banking/lending institution records or a survey of survey of financial institutions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Indicator 5 measures the number of individuals accessing debt and non-debt financing. Indicator 7
measures the number of loans (debt financing) disbursed to producers and others, and Indicator 8
measures the value of agriculture-related financing accessed.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.2.3/2.2.3.1/2.3.1.1: Increased Use of
Agricultural Productivity
Financial Services
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 8: Value of agriculture-related financing accessed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator sums the total U.S. dollar value of debt (both cash and in-kind loans) and
non-debt financing, such as equity financing, disbursed during the reporting year as a result of USDAassistance to producers (individual farmers, fishers, cooperatives, etc.), input suppliers, transporters,
processors, other MSMEs, and larger enterprises that are in a targeted agricultural value chain. The
indicator counts the value of non-debt financing and both cash and non-cash lending disbursed to the
participant, not financing merely committed (e.g., loans in process, but not yet available to the
participant).
Debt: Count cash loans and the value of in-kind lending. For cash loans, count only loans made by
financial institutions and not by informal groups such as village savings and loan groups that are not
formally registered as a financial institution [1]. However, the loans counted can be made by any size
financial institution from microfinance institutions through national commercial banks, as well as any
non-deposit taking financial institutions and other types of financial NGOs. In-kind lending in agriculture
is the provision of services, inputs, or other goods up front, with payment usually in the form of product
(value of service, input, or other good provided plus interest) provided at the end of the season. For inkind lending, USDA may facilitate in-kind loans of inputs (e.g., fertilizer, seeds) or equipment usage (e.g.
tractor, plow) via implementing partners or partnerships. NOTE: formal leasing arrangements should be
captured in non-debt financing section below), or transport with repayment in kind.
Non-Debt: Count any financing received other than cash loans and in-kind lending. Examples include:
equity, convertible debt, or other equity-like investments, which can be made by local or international
investors; and leasing, which may be extended by local banks or specialized leasing companies.
The value of loans accessed through informal groups is not included because this indicator is attempting
to capture the systems-level changes that occur through increased access to formal financial services.
RATIONALE: Increased access to finance demonstrates improved inclusion in the financial sector and
appropriate financial service offerings. This, in turn, will help expand markets and trade and ought to
also contribute to expanding agricultural productivity which will help achieve the key objective of
defining inclusive agricultural sector more broadly than just crop production. In turn, this contributes to
both goals of reducing poverty and hunger.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
US Dollars
Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Type of financing accessed: Debt
SECOND LEVEL
Type of debt: Cash, In-kind
Size of recipient: Individuals/microenterprises; Small and medium enterprises; Large enterprises
32

and corporations.
Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises
employed 10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large
enterprises and corporations employed >250 individuals.
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
If the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be used for
classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm as Male if
all of the proprietors are male, as Female if all of the proprietors are female, and as
Mixed if the proprietors are male and female.
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
If the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the age of the proprietor should be used for
classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm as 15-29 if
all of the proprietors are aged 15-29, as 30+ if all of the proprietors are aged 30+, and as
Mixed if the proprietors are from both age groups.
FIRST LEVEL
Type of financing accessed: Non-debt
SECOND LEVEL
Size of recipient: Individuals/microenterprises; Small and medium enterprises; Large enterprises
and corporations.
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
DATA SOURCE:
WHO WILL COLLECT DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected using a survey of targeted individuals of FFPr
projects or financial institution and investor records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Count targeted individuals within the scope of the USDA project. Convert local currency to US dollars at
the average market foreign exchange rate for the reporting period or convert periodically throughout
the year if there is rapid devaluation or appreciation. Report exchange rate in indicator narrative in
FAIS.
Indicator 5 measures the number of individuals accessing financing. Indicator 7 measures the number of
loans disbursed to producers and others, and Indicator 8 measures the value of agriculture-related
financing accessed by farmers and other value chain participants.
Note: This indicator is related to Indicator 14 Value of new USG commitments and new public and
private sector investment leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition. Where there is a
USDA commitment such as a grant, guarantee provision, or insurance coverage, the resulting value of
debt or non-debt financing accessed by participants of USDA-funded activities should be counted under
this indicator. The total value of the private sector investment leveraged should be counted under
Indicator 14. These two indicators will not be aggregated, thus there is no “double counting.”
33

BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-27]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.2.4: Increased Knowledge of Improved
Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Techniques and Technologies
FFPr INDICATOR 9: Number of technologies, practices, and approaches under various phases of
research, development, and uptake as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator tracks the progression of new or significantly improved technologies,
practices, and approaches through research and development (R&D) to the demonstrated uptake by
public or private sector stakeholders. The R&D process should be hypothesis driven, testable, and
independently replicable. The technologies, practices, and approaches under R&D should have the
potential to achieve significant improvements in reducing poverty, hunger, and malnutrition versus
existing alternatives. Examples include a new seed variety, a new blend of fertilizer for a particular soil
type, or proper sequencing of interventions to increase the adoption of a new technology. Support
through USDA assistance includes human, financial, institutional support, in full or in part, for the
discovery, research, development, testing, or making available for uptake by the public and private
sector.
The technology, practice, or approach is disaggregated first into R&D categories, then into the phase of
research. Definitions and illustrative examples of technologies, practices, and approaches by R&D
category are:
● Plant and Animal Improvement Research: Includes trait, marker, and gene discovery for agriculturally
important characteristics, coupled with application of conventional breeding and/or advanced
biotechnological approaches for the genetic improvement of plant and animal species. Products include
improved germplasm (varieties, breeds, etc.) that is higher-yielding, more resilient to biotic and abiotic
stresses, higher in nutritional content (e.g. biofortified crops such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes,
high-protein maize, or improved livestock breeds), and/or possesses improved market or processing
traits.
● Production Systems Research: Includes Integrated Pest Management (including grafting), Sustainable
Intensification (e.g. mechanization, small-scale irrigation, planting schedules, soil management),
livestock management, post-harvest and food safety technologies; management practices for feed or
food, Natural Resource Management, and vaccines and animal health services. Products include new
land preparation, harvesting, processing and product-handling and food safety technologies and
practices including packaging and storage methods; sustainable water and land management practices;
and sustainable aquaculture and fisheries practices.
● Social Science Research: Includes research concerning the effectiveness of agricultural policy options
(policy research); research on the socio-behavioral, socioeconomic, or sociopolitical factors that
influence decision-making; economic research on products or approaches that overcome barriers to
farmer investment in or adoption of improved technology and management practice, etc. (economic
research); research or creation of new/improved tools for market access, including financial and
insurance products (market access research); and nutrition research. Products include new risk
management approaches, such as the integration of partially-subsidized index insurance into social
safety nets that cost-effectively increase the resilience of vulnerable households; and approaches to
effectively and sustainably change nutrition behaviors or the adoption of improved seeds.
Technologies, practices and approaches should be reported under each phase reached during the
reporting year. It is not required that all technologies, practices, and approaches pass through all four
phases to be reported under the indicator nor is it essential that all investments start at Phase I. For
35

example, a seed variety that is only being field-tested for country-level adaptation and then submitted
for country-level certification would only be tracked through Phases II and III. However, any technology,
practice, or approach that is reported under Phase IV must have been previously reported under Phase
I, II, or III during the life of the activity.
Four phases of research, development, and uptake:
Phase I - Under research as a result of USDA assistance: Count new technologies, practices, or
approaches under research in the current reporting year.
Phase II - Under field testing as a result of USDA assistance: “Under field testing” means that research
has moved from focused development, where a promising technology or practice has been identified, to
broader testing of effectiveness under conditions intended to resemble those that the potential users of
the new technology will encounter.
Phase III - Made available for uptake as a result of USDA assistance: Count technologies, practices or
approaches that are ready to be taken up or adopted by a public or private sector entity, which would
then disseminate the technology, practice or approach to end users in a manner that promotes
sustainable, widespread adoption at the population level.
Phase IV – Demonstrated uptake by the public and/or private sector with USDA assistance: A
technology, practice, or approach has “demonstrated uptake” if any public- and/or private-sector actor
has institutionalized or provided support for dissemination, independent of USDA assistance, at any
point during the reporting period.
A technology, practice or approach should be reported each year it is actively in Phase I or Phase II
during the mechanism’s life of activity. A technology, practice, or approach reported under Phase III and
IV should be counted only once per country by each recipient across the life of the project, and should
be reported on during the first reporting year when the technology, practice or approach is made
available for uptake (Phase III) or has demonstrated uptake (Phase IV).
RATIONALE: Research helps inform policy, strategic direction of programs, and methods to overcome
barriers to implementation in developing country settings by strengthening the evidence-base for
development. This indicator tracks the four phases of research and development and aligns with the
cross-cutting contributions of research under the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS) results
framework.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number
Output (phases
Progress to a higher
Annually covering the period:
1,2,3);
phase is usually better.
October 1 – September 30
Outcome (phase 4)
DISAGGREGATION:
Category of Research
• Plant and Animal Improvement Research
• Production Systems Research
• Social Science Research
Within each category disaggregate by phase of development:
36

• Under research as a result of USDA assistance
• Under field testing as a result of USDA assistance
• Made available for uptake as a result of USDA assistance
• Demonstrated uptake by the public and/or private sector with USDA assistance
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Activity records, reports or surveys
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-7]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.4.1/2.4.1 Increased Capacity of
Agricultural Productivity
Government Institutions
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 10: Number of individuals who have received USDA-supported degree-granting nonnutrition-related food security training
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the number of people who are currently enrolled in or have
graduated during the reporting year from a degree-granting technical, vocational, associate, bachelor,
master, or Ph.D. program. Degree candidates being supported through partial fellowships or exchange
programs can be counted toward this indicator. A person who completes one degree-granting program
in the fiscal year and is currently participating in another degree-granting program should be counted
only once in the reporting year, no matter the length of either degree-granting program; she/he should
be counted under the Continuing disaggregate.
Non-nutrition-related food security training includes training in areas such as agronomy, crop science,
climate science, plant pathology, rural sociology, anthropology, agricultural economics, agricultural
engineering, seed science and systems, bioinformatics, and conflict and conflict resolution.
This indicator measures individuals receiving degree-granting training; individuals applying new
practices based on training should be reported under Indicator 4 Number of individuals in the agriculture
system who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance
RATIONALE: Measures enhanced human capacity for policy formulation, technology development and
research/education capacity building and implementation, which is key to transformational
development.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number
Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
Duration:
• New = the individual received USDA-supported degree-granting training for the first time during
the reporting year
• Continuing = the individual received USDA-supported degree-granting training in the previous
year and continued to receive it in the reporting year
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Activity records
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE

FtF INDICATOR:
Yes [EG.3.2-2]

DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.4.1/2.4.1 Increased Capacity of
Agricultural Productivity
Government Institutions
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 11: Number of host government or community-derived risk management plans
formally proposed, adopted, implemented or institutionalized with USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The indicator tracks the performance of activities working with national governments,
regional and/or local governments and/or communities to develop, implement, and institutionalize risk
management plans.
Risk is defined as the potential for an uncertain event or trend to have adverse consequences on lives;
livelihoods; health; property; ecosystems and species; economic, social and cultural assets; service
provision (including environmental services); and infrastructure.
Ideally, risk management plans should be nested within one another. The community plan should be
nested within a local or regional government plan that should in turn be nested in the national plan.
Activities can work at any of these levels and report under this indicator.
A risk management plan should:
• identify risks (for example flooding, drought, landslide),
• assess their likelihood (a 3 year drought versus a 50 year drought), and
• develop strategies to reduce risk exposure (before the shock), mitigate the impact of the risk
and increase ability to cope (during the shock), and reduce recovery time (after the shock).
Understanding that the implementation of plans takes time, the indicator disaggregates by the stage in
implementation (proposed, adopted, implemented, and institutionalized).
Stages of Implementation:
• Proposed: A plan is in the proposed stage when the activity has started working on or designing
a risk management strategy in conjunction with the community or host government (all levels).
A plan can be in this stage for multiple years.
• Adopted: A risk management plan is in the adoption phase if the plan has been officially
accepted by the stakeholders (e.g. local community leaders, local governments, congress). A
plan is considered officially adopted when there is a written document outlining roles and
responsibilities with signatures as applicable.
• Implementation: A risk management plan is in the implementation phase if elements of the plan
are being actively implemented. Implementation can be an ongoing process (examples of
implementation activities are given in the Rationale section below).
• Institutionalization: The end goal is to have the host government or community internalize the
risk management plan and take over administration, financing, and implementation, thus
making the plan sustainable. Institutionalization will be different for government and
community plans. Government institutionalization should be more structured and include a
budget line item. Community institutionalization will be less formalized and will include more
qualitative evidence that the community is invested and providing and/or securing resources
(monetary or in-kind) that will sustain implementation past the end of the activity.
A plan should be reported under only one plan type (government or community). But a plan should be
40

reported under each stage reached during the reporting year. Recipients may report that a plan has
been implemented in more than one year. For example, if in year one the community implements
several actions under the plan to improve the management of water resources and in the next year
works to develop a nursery to support reforestation efforts, the community can be counted and
reported under the Implementation phase both years.
RATIONALE: In the geographic areas where Food for Progress works, research has shown that covariate
shocks, and therefore people’s exposure to risk, are cyclical and to be expected. Proactively developing
risk management plans with strategies and potential coping mechanisms will reduce the impact on the
community. Notably, risk exposure, particularly weather risk exposure, impacts behavior and livelihood
decisions, ex ante, regardless of whether the shock actually occurs. Risk management plans can change
the calculus and impact beneficiaries' behavior in the absence of a shock.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number
Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type: Government, Community
Phase of development: Proposed, Adopted, Implemented, Institutionalized
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Activity records
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baselines are required and should be collected at the onset of the activity. Baseline can
be zero if there are no risk management plans at any of the stages of development in the target
communities/levels of government prior to the start of the activity.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [RESIL-1]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.4.4/2.4.4: Improved Capacity of Key
Agricultural Productivity
Groups in the Agriculture Production Sector
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 12: Number of organizations with increased performance with USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures whether USDA-funded capacity development efforts have led to
improved organizational performance in organizations receiving organizational performance
improvement support.
This indicator should only be used when a project intentionally allocates resources (human, financial,
and/or other) toward strengthening organizational capacity and undergoes a deliberate performance
improvement process that is documented. With support from the recipient, each organization being
supported should determine how it will define and monitor performance improvement based on its
organizational mandate and strategic goals and objectives.
The recipient can count an organization under this indicator if:
(a) an organization demonstrates that it has undergone and documented at a minimum the following
four steps:
1.
Obtain organizational stakeholder input to define desired performance outputs or
outcomes.
2.
Analyze and assess performance gaps (the difference between desired performance and
actual performance).
3.
Select and implement performance improvement solutions.
4.
Monitor and evaluate performance, and
(b) an organization demonstrates that its targets for performance improvement have been met or
achieved. The recipient sets annual targets for this indicator based on how many organizations will have
improved organizational performance each year.
Organizations may choose their preferred approach and/or tools for documenting the process and
achievement of performance improvement targets. One example of a broad performance improvement
and measurement tool that USAID has endorsed is the Organizational Performance Index (OPI), which
can be used for assessing performance across multiple domains. Other examples include university
accreditation self-assessments, a balanced scorecard approach, Six Sigma, and many others. A
description of the approach and/or tool used, including reliability and validity, should be documented to
the extent possible in the project Performance Monitoring Plan.
RATIONALE: This indicator measures capacity development efforts to change behavior to improve
organization performance in the agricultural sector.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number:
Outcome
N/A
Annually covering the period:
Organizations
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of organization:
• Research and educational
• Private sector firms
42

• Producer associations
• Extension organizations
• Government agencies
• Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations
• Women’s group
• Trade and business association
• Water users association
• Other
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data should be collected using appropriate methods (including relevant
questionnaires or other data documentation methods). Tools and data collection methods should be
documented in the project Performance Monitoring Plan.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
Recipients should upload documentation in FAIS for the four steps identified above for each
organization being reported under this indicator.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-29]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.4.5/2.4.5: Increased Leverage of Private
Agricultural Productivity
Sector Resources
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 13: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The number of public-private partnerships in agriculture or nutrition formed during the
reporting year due to USDA intervention (i.e. agricultural or nutrition activity, as described below).
Private partnerships can be long or short in duration (length is not a criteria for measurement).
Partnerships with multiple partners should only be counted once, though each partnership for a
different purpose should be counted. A public-private alliance (partnership) is considered formed when
there is a clear agreement, usually written, to work together to achieve a common objective. There
must be either a cash or in-kind significant contribution to the effort by both the public and private
entity. A private entity can be a for-profit entity, an NGO using private funds, a private company, a
community group, or a state-owned enterprise which seeks to make a profit (even if unsuccessfully). A
public entity can be a donor-funded program participant (or the project itself), a national or sub-national
government, or state-owned enterprises which are non-profit.
A project may form more than one partnership with the same entity, but this is likely to be rare. In
counting partnerships, we are not counting transactions with a partner entity; we are counting the
number of partnerships formed during the reporting year. Public-private partnerships counted should
be only those formed during the current reporting year. Any partnership that was formed in a previous
year should not be included.
An agricultural activity is any activity related to the supply of agricultural inputs, production methods,
processing, or transportation. A nutritional activity includes any activity focused on attempting to
improve the nutritional content of agricultural products as provided to consumers, develop improved
nutritional products, increase support for nutrition service delivery, etc.
This indicator is not directly paired with the following indicator on the value of public and private
investments leveraged. In other words, this indicator tracks the number of public-private partnerships
formed, and these partnerships may or may not be the same ones that result in investments leveraged
by USDA.
RATIONALE: The assumption of this indicator is that if more partnerships are formed it is likely that
there will be more investment in agriculture or nutrition-related activities, which ultimately contributes
to agricultural sector growth. The improvement in growth will increase the incomes of all, but because
the focus of project work is on the vulnerable (women, children, and the poor) there will also be a
reduction in poverty.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number:
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
Partnerships
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of partnership (refer to the primary focus of the partnership if applicable):
• Agricultural production
• Agricultural post-harvest transformation
• Nutrition
44

• Multi-focus (use this if there are several components of the above sectors in the partnership)
• Other (do not use this for multi-focus partnerships)
DATA SOURCE:
WHO WILL COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected at the project-level, through project records of
activities and partnerships.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Only count partnerships that are attributable to USDA investment.
Each partnership’s formation should only ever be reported once in order to add the total number of
partnerships across years.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr 1.4.5/2.4.5: Increase leverage of private sector
Agricultural Productivity
resources
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded
FFPr 2.2: Increased Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural
Trade of Agricultural Products
Products
FFPr INDICATOR 14: Value of new USG commitments and new public and private sector investment
leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition
DEFINITION: Investment is defined as any use of public or private sector resources intended to increase
future production output or income, to improve the sustainable use of agricultural-related natural
resources (soil, water, etc.), or to improve water or land management anywhere along the food, feed,
and fiber system, and natural resources management. Data should be collected for four categories:
“host government,” “other public sector,” “private sector”, and “new USG commitments”.
“Host Government” includes any investments from the national, regional, or local governments.
“Other public sector” includes any investments provided by the Program Participant itself, or other
Private Voluntary Organizations
“Private sector” includes any investments from a private actor, including for-profit organizations, private
philanthropic organizations, or individuals.
“New USG commitments” refers to funds in the form of a direct loan, part of a grant, or other award
designed to leverage additional funds from private sector organizations. Subsidies paid to structure a
guarantee or insurance product do not count as new USG commitments.
“Leveraged by USDA” indicates that the investment was directly encouraged or facilitated by the
activities funded or resources provided by USDA.
“Investments” means the level of resources provided during each reporting year.
For multi-year activities, commitments are recorded at the outset of the activity, if made prior to the
start of the activity, or during the year when they are made, if commitments are received during
implementation of an activity.
This indicator is not directly paired with the preceding indicator on public-private partnerships. In other
words, this indicator does not track only investments that may have been leveraged via those
partnerships, but rather is separate and broader in tracking the value of any public or private sector
investments leveraged (encouraged or facilitated) by the activities or resources provided by USDA.
RATIONALE: Increased investment is essential to inclusive economic growth in the agricultural sector.
Public and private sector investment is key to achieving long-term impact in improvements in food
security, agricultural sustainability and expanded trade. Public and private sector investments should be
coordinated and complimentary. Private sector investment is critical because it indicates that the
investment is perceived by private agents as providing a positive financial return and therefore is likely
to lead to sustainable increases in agricultural production and expanded trade. Public sector
investments can be used to pilot programs, test innovation, and scale-up effective programs.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
U.S. Dollar
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
46

October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of investment:
• Host Government
• Other public sector
• Private sector
• New USG commitments
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by project records, firm/farm records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Convert local currency to US dollars at the average market foreign exchange
rate for the reporting period. Report exchange rate in indicator narrative in FAIS.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.1-14]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products

FFPr 2.2: Increased Access to Markets to Sell
Agricultural Products
FFPr 2.3: Improved Transaction Efficiency
FFPr 2.2.3/2.3.1: Improved Market and Trade
Infrastructure
FFPr INDICATOR 15: Kilometers of roads improved or constructed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The length of roads, in kilometers, on which construction of new roads or reconstruction,
rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of existing roads is complete.
A road “improvement” indicates that the intervention significantly improved the ease of commercial
transport along that road and includes reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing or upgrading of
existing roads include improving drainage systems, while “constructed” refers to a new road.
In general, a road need not necessarily be paved with cement or asphalt but should significantly
facilitate the transport of goods compared to the previous situation without the road or without the
road improvement.
RATIONALE: A road opens up transport from rural spaces where rural-based production activities such
as agriculture are taking place, and connects, either directly or indirectly, with population centers and
market activity. The ability to move harvested goods to storage or processing facilities or to market has
a direct impact on efficiency of post-production processes. As such, a project may aim to build or
improve roads leading to and from farms.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Kilometers
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Construction type:
• Improved
• Constructed (new)
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected through direct measurement or geo-spatial
imaging (GPS) measurement of the length of roads added or improved in the project, project records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Count only those roads improved or constructed with USDA assistance.
Only count those kilometers of roads improved or constructed during the reporting year.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.1-1]
For more guidance, please refer to the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook
(https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicator-handbook).
48

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of FFPr 2.1.2.2: Improved Post-Harvest Infrastructure
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 16: Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA
assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures total increase in functioning (refurbished and new) cubic meters of
storage capacity that have been installed through USDA programming and leveraged during the
reporting year. Installed storage capacity is an aggregate amount that encompasses on-farm and offfarm storage, dry goods and cold chain storage. Both newly installed and refurbished storage should be
counted here.
RATIONALE: Post harvest losses of foodstuffs and other agricultural products can account for a
significant proportion of overall commodity/product disappearance (waste) in developing countries. A
reduction in post-harvest losses through greater storage capacity could, therefore, substantially increase
both food and income available to rural households and increase food availability to urban areas, as
well.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Cubic Meters
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of storage:
• Dry
• Cold
Type of installation:
• Refurbished
• New
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected through a survey of farmers about new storage
facilities, direct observation of storage units added to target farms (calculate total volume of additional
storage capacity across all farms), project records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data on and off-farm, counting only storage added/refurbished that can
be accessed by participants.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products

FFPr 2.1.1.1: Increased Adoption of Established
Standards by Industry
FFPr 2.4.2: Improved Policy and Regulatory
Framework
FFPr INDICATOR 17: Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the
following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Number of agricultural enabling environment policies/regulations/administrative
procedures in the areas of agricultural resource, food, market standards & regulation, public
investment, natural resource or water management, and climate change adaptation/mitigation as it
relates to agriculture that:
• Stage 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process, i.e. analysis (review of existing
policy/regulation/administrative procedure and/or proposal of new
policy/regulation/administrative procedure).
• Stage 2: Underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second stage includes
public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative procedure.
• Stage 3: Underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were presented for
legislation/decree to improve the policy environment for agriculture).
• Stage 4: Underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process [official approval
(legislation/decree) of new or revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant
authority].
• Stage 5: Completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority).
• Other: Or were otherwise shaped by the recipient’s direct involvement.
RATIONALE: This indicator measures the number of policies/regulations/administrative procedures in
the various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment for agriculture whose subelements are specific policy sectors. It includes the development, implementation, and enforcement of
policies and regulations that support the achievement of one or more results in the FFPr framework
focused on expanding trade in agricultural products.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR
DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: policies,
LEVEL:
Although this set of five
Annually covering the period:
regulations, and/or
Stages 1 & 2:
indicators tracks individual
October 1 – September 30
administrative
Output
policies through the stages,
procedures and
Stages 3, 4 &
one should see the aggregates
supplementary
5: Outcome
of these indicators, over time,
narrative
change in certain ways. One
should expect the value of the
indicators measuring the
earlier stages to decline and
the indicators measuring the
later stages of progress to
increase as the enabling
environment is strengthened
(i.e. move from analysis to
adoption and implementation
of reforms).
50

DISAGGREGATION:
Stage: (1-5, other)
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected at the project-level, through project records of
activities and capacity building carried out by the project, observation and analysis of the host
government legal status of the various policies being addressed. Policies, legislation, regulations should
be submitted to USDA and attached in biannual project reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Only count policies specifically addressed with USDA assistance.
Enter the name of the policy/regulation/administrative procedure and its stage in order to track
movement through the stages. Count the highest stage completed during the reporting year.
This indicator tracks the policy, regulation, or administrative procedure. Multiple project participants
working in the same country or region (with regard to regional policies) may report the same policy,
regulation, or administrative procedure as long as the program participant participated in the process
and provided assistance to the development, drafting, formation of the law or policy.
Recognizing that the policymaking process is not always linear, the same policy/regulation/
administrative procedure can be counted more than once in each stage over the life of the project. For
example, if a trade regulation were introduced as a piece of legislation and subsequently tabled for
further consultation with stakeholders, the trade regulation could be counted in stage 3 in the reporting
year it was introduced, in stage 2 in the reporting year it was tabled, and in stage 3 if it were reintroduced in a subsequent reporting year. Only count the regulation once per reporting year.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Products
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 18: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the value in U.S. dollars of the total amount of sales of products
and services by USDA-assisted farms and firms during the reporting year within USDA-supported
agricultural commodity value chains or markets. This indicator also collects additional data points on
the value of sales in local currency and the number of activity participants, including the number of
producers and the number of assisted private sector firms.
Examples of USDA assistance include facilitating access to improved seeds and other inputs, to
extension, business development and financial services, and to micro-enterprise loans; providing
technical support in production techniques; strengthening linkages to markets; and other activities that
benefit producers or private sector firms in the agriculture and food system.
Annual sales include all sales by farms and firms participating in USDA-funded activities. This includes
producers, such as farmers, fishers, and ranchers; and private sector non-farm enterprises, such as
aggregators, input suppliers and distributors, traders, or processors of the targeted commodity(ies)
throughout the value chain. In value-chain-facilitation and other market-strengthening activities,
activity participants include the private sector firms with direct contact with the USDA-funded activity
and the producers and other customers buying from or selling to the USDA-assisted firms. Food For
Progress recognizes the difficulty and cost to collect sales data directly from producers, especially when
working with firms though a market-system approach intended to strengthen the links between
producers and firms that purchase from them for onward sales, processing, etc. In these cases,
recipients may consider collecting data from firms on producers who sold to the firms while collecting
data on sales of the firms, rather than attempting to collect sales data from the producers directly.
Recipients can then report both producer and firm sales under the appropriate disaggregate.
“Private sector” includes any privately-led agricultural enterprise managed by a for-profit company. A
community-based organization (CBO) or nongovernmental organization (NGO) may be included if the
CBO or NGO engages in for-profit agricultural activity. Activity participants may be involved in
agricultural production, agro-processing, wholesale or retail sales, fisheries, input supply, or other
business activities in USDA-assisted value chains and/or markets.
Only count sales in the reporting year that are attributable to USDA, i.e. where USDA assisted the
individual farmer or firm, or the market actor with which they are engaged directly, and for those value
chains/commodities/markets which USDA supports.
Under participants, count the number of assisted producers for whom sales data are available. Include
producers reached directly with outreach and those buying from or selling to USDA-assisted firms in a
systems strengthening approach. For firms, count the USDA-assisted firm as the participant.
It is essential that a Baseline Year Sales data point be entered. If data on the total value of sales by
participant farms or firms prior to USDA-funded activity implementation is not available, do not leave
the baseline blank or enter ‘0’. Use the earliest Reporting Year Sales actual as the Baseline Year Sales.
The number of participants in USDA-funded activities often increases over time as the activity rolls out.
Unless an activity has identified all prospective participants at the time the baseline is established, the
52

baseline sales value will only include sales made by participant farms and firms identified when the
baseline is established during the first year of implementation. The baseline sales value will not include
the baselines from farms and firms added in subsequent years. To address this issue, USDA requires
reporting the number of participants, both producers and private sector firms for each value chain
product or service along with baseline and reporting year sales. These data points can be used to
calculate average sales per participant at baseline, disaggregated by farm and firm and assist with
interpreting the reasons for an observed growth in the value of sales. To generate meaningful out-year
targets for annual sales, targets for number of participants, disaggregated by farm and firm, are also
required.
The type of Product or Service sold by the producer or firm is the first level disaggregate when reporting.
These are broken down into the following disaggregate categories to be reported in FAIS, with
illustrative examples:
Products:
• Agricultural commodities, which generally include those raw products sold by producers such as
staples, legumes, horticulture, livestock, and fish but does NOT include seeds. The specific
commodity (maize, mung beans, tomatoes, etc.) needs to be selected.
• Inputs: Seeds and planting material.
• Inputs: Other non-durable inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides.
• Inputs: Durable equipment and machinery, including land preparation equipment, irrigation
equipment, and other equipment or machinery.
• Processed products/value added products (post-harvest). The specific commodity does not need
to be selected.
• Post-harvest storage and processing equipment, including PICS bags and processing machinery.
Services:
• Business services, including financial, entrepreneurial, legal, and other enterprise/producer
strengthening services
• Information services: SMS, Radio, TV, print, etc.
• Production support services: other services that are sold to farmers, fishers, ranchers and
pastoralists, including extension services, veterinary services, rental of equipment, land
preparation, warehousing, post-harvest processing
RATIONALE: Value (in US dollars) of sales at the farm and enterprise level is a measure of the
competitiveness of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. This measurement also helps track
access to markets and progress toward commercialization by farmers and enterprises receiving USDA
assistance. An increase in sales of agricultural products and services is directly related to increasing
agricultural productivity and expanding trade of agricultural products.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
U.S. Dollar
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Type of product or service: See definition for list of product and service types. For agricultural
commodities, report the specific commodity.
SECOND LEVEL
53

Type of producer/firm (firms are non-farm enterprises): Producer - smallholder, Producer – nonsmallholder, Firm – microenterprise, Firm - Small and medium enterprise, Firm- Large enterprise
or corporation. (see definition of smallholder and firm type below)
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats:
five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20
layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises employed
10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large enterprises and
corporations employed >250 individuals.
THIRD LEVEL
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as Male if all of the proprietors are male, as Female if all of the proprietors are female,
and as Mixed if the proprietors are male and female.
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the age of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as 15-29 if all of the proprietors are aged 15-29, as 30+ if all of the proprietors are aged
30+, and as Mixed if the proprietors are from both age groups.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data from assisted producers and firms may need to be collected
separately. Ideally, this indicator will be collected directly from a census of all participant farms and
firms, from recorded sales data and/or farm/firm records. A sample survey-based approach for
participant producers within the geographic area reached by the assisted market is also acceptable.
Recipients should work with assisted firms to ensure that appropriate information is provided.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance.
If a sample of participants is used to collect sales data, sample survey weighted estimates must be
extrapolated to total participant estimated values before entry into FAIS to accurately reflect total value
of reporting year sales in USD by the project’s participants. Convert local currency to USD at the
average market foreign exchange rate for the reporting period. Report exchange rate in comments in
FAIS.
Report the number of participants, both producers and private sector firms for each value chain
product or service, and for each type of producer/firm, sex, and age disaggregate. For example, to
report on the number of participants in the coffee value chain, recipients should enter the following
information for the reporting year:
54

Number of participants
• total number of smallholder, female, coffee-producing program participants
• total number of smallholder, male, coffee-producing program participants
• total number of smallholder, 15-29 year old, coffee-producing program participants
• total number of smallholder, 30+ year old, coffee-producing program participants
• Repeat as necessary with each relevant Type of producer/firm
Note that the volume (in metric tons) of sales of agricultural commodities will be reported in Indicator
19. There should be a correlation between the value of sales of agricultural commodities reported for
this Indicator and the volume (in metric tons) of sales reported in Indicator 19.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline data reflects value of sales in the year prior to programming and should be
collected through records of assisted firms and/or a sample survey of producers via recall.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-26]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Products
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 19: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator will collect the volume (as calculated in gross metric tons (MT)) of sales of
targeted commodities by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. This includes the volume of all
sales of targeted commodity(ies), not just the volume of farm-gate sales.
The actual number reported for the indicator will be the gross volume of sales of a product (crop, animal
or fish) by project participants in the reporting period. Only count the gross volume of sales in the
reporting period attributable to USDA investment.
USDA will use the data reported for this indicator, as well as the data reported on the value of annual
sales, when reporting on the Feed the Future Initiative. Please note that the value of annual sales
indicator cannot be calculated without a value for the baseline year’s sales. If data on the total volume
of sales of the value chain commodity by participants prior to USDA activity implementation is not
available, do not leave the baseline blank or enter ‘0.’ Use the earliest reporting year sales volume
actual as the baseline year sales.
RATIONALE: Volume (in MT) of sales at the farm and enterprise level of targeted commodities is a
measure of the competitiveness of those beneficiaries receiving USDA assistance. This measurement
also helps track supply, access to markets, and progress toward commercialization by farmers and
enterprises receiving USDA assistance.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Metric Tons
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Commodity Type (type of crop, type of animal or animal product, or type of fish – freshwater or marine).
Note: Horticultural product-specific disaggregation is not required for this indicator. The overall
“horticulture” commodity disaggregate can be used if desired.
SECOND LEVEL
Type of producer/firm (firms are non-farm enterprises): Producer - smallholder, Producer – nonsmallholder, Firm – microenterprise, Firm - Small and medium enterprise, Firm- Large enterprise
or corporation. (see definition of smallholder and firm type below)
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats:
five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20
layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises employed
10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large enterprises and
corporations employed >250 individuals.
56

THIRD LEVEL
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as Male if all of the proprietors are male, as Female if all of the proprietors are female,
and as Mixed if the proprietors are male and female.
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the age of the proprietor should be used for
classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm as 15-29 if all of the
proprietors are aged 15-29, as 30+ if all of the proprietors are aged 30+, and as Mixed if the proprietors
are from both age groups.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data from assisted producers and firms may need to be collected
separately. Ideally, this indicator will be collected directly from a census of all participant farms and
firms, from recorded sales data and/or farm/firm records. A sample survey-based approach for
participant producers within the geographic area reached by the assisted market is also acceptable.
Recipients should work with assisted firms to ensure that appropriate information is provided.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance, i.e. where
USDA assisted the individual farmer or firm, or the market actor with which they are engaged directly,
and for those value chains/commodities/markets which USDA supports.
If a sample of participants is used to collect sales data, sample survey weighted estimates must be
extrapolated to total participant estimated values before entry into FAIS to accurately reflect total sales
by the project’s participants.
Volume (in metric tons) of agricultural commodities should be directly related to value of agricultural
commodities measured in Indicator 18.
BASELINE INFO: Volume of agricultural commodities reported at baseline and for the reporting years
should be the volume that was sold and reported as sales in Indicator 18.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-26]
FtF collects this information as part of the Value of annual sales indicator. In
order to capture this data in USDA’s database system, a separate indicator on
volume has been developed.

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 20: Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Jobs are all types of employment opportunities created during the reporting year in
agriculture- or rural-related enterprises, including paid on-farm/fishery employment. Jobs lasting less
than one month, or less than 20 days excluding weekends, are not counted in order to emphasize those
jobs that provide more stability through duration. This indicator counts both full-time employment and
part-time employment, including temporary and seasonal employment. Full-time jobs last at least 260
days (excluding weekends) or 12 months. Part-time jobs last between 21 days and 259 days, excluding
weekends. Number of hours worked per day or per week is not restricted as hours may vary.
Attributed to USDA assistance includes farming and non-farm jobs where USDA investments were
intentional in assisting in any way to expand (or contract) jobs and where a program objective of the
USDA investment was job creation. Examples of jobs created include cash for work programs,
construction of roads and other infrastructure, on-farm employment, and employment in processing
facilities. To be considered a job created, the positions must last longer than one month in duration.
RATIONALE: This is a direct measure of improved livelihoods, as it measures creation of employment
and related income. However, USDA is concerned about creation of sustainable employment, not shortduration employment, defined as a period of less than one month.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Jobs
Outcome
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Type of Employment: Full-time, Part-time
SECOND LEVEL
Sex of Job Holder: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by project records, firm/farm records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to FFPr projects.
Each job created should only ever be reported once in order to add the total number of jobs across
years.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None
58

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Products
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 21: Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity
or food security training as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted
through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills
should be counted as received training, through formal or informal means.
There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the
training reflects a planned, structured curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a
reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or skills that s/he could
translate into action. Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received
during the reporting year and whether the trainings covered different topics. Do not count sensitization
meetings or one-off information meetings. Short-term includes all non-degree seeking training.
Individuals include agricultural producers, ranchers, fisheries, and other primary sector producers who
receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to
markets, etc. It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in
application of new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc., and extension
specialists, researchers, inspectors, government employees, policy makers, and others who are engaged
in the food, feed and fiber system, and natural resources management.
In-country and offshore training are included. Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension
methods as well as technical assistance activities.
RATIONALE: Enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security,
policy formulation and/or implementation, is key to transformational development.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the periods:
October 1-March 31 and April 1September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male/Female
Duration:
• New = this reporting year is the first period the person applied the new technology or technique
• Continuing = the person first applied the new technology or technique in the previous period
and continues to apply it
Type of individual:
• Producers (farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers, etc.)
• People in firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers)
• People in government (e.g. extension workers, policymakers)
• People in civil society (e.g. NGOs, CBOs, research and academic organizations)
o Note: While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only
59

count them under the Private Sector Firms and not the Civil Society disaggregate to
avoid double counting.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant training records,
reports, or surveys. Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Count only those individuals targeted by USDA programs.
This indicator is a comprehensive indicator that includes all USDA supported training.
This indicator is to measure individuals receiving training, for which the outcome, individuals applying
new practices should be reported under Indicator 4 Number of individuals in the agriculture system who
have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance.
Individuals should not be double counted in a given fiscal year. For example, if one individual
participates in multiple project-sponsored training courses in a given fiscal year, they should only be
counted one time in that fiscal year. Individuals participating in project-sponsored training courses in
multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

Smallholder and non-smallholder producers that projects or project-supported actors reach
directly (e.g. through an irrigation training, through a loan provided, through distribution of
drought-tolerant seeds to specific farmers);
Proprietors of firms in the private sector that we help strengthen (e.g. agrodealers, aggregators,
processors), but not all the employees of those firms;
Producers who directly interact with those USDA-assisted firms (e.g. the producers who are
customers of an assisted agrodealer; the producers from whom an assisted trader or aggregator
buys), but not customers or suppliers who are not producers;
Participants whose main source of income is labor (e.g. Laborers/non-producer diversified
livelihood participants);
People reached by productive safety nets, community-based micro-finance and diversified
livelihood activities through our assistance;
People in civil society organizations and government whose skills and capacity have been
strengthened by projects or project-supported actors;

Individuals should not be double counted. Individuals may receive multiple interventions in one fiscal
year but should only be counted upon first receipt of project interventions. For example, if one
individual participates in multiple USDA-sponsored training courses in a given fiscal year, they will only
be counted one time in that fiscal year. Individuals participating in USDA-sponsored training courses in
multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
RATIONALE: This indicator is designed to capture the breadth of our food security work. This indicator
tracks access to goods and services that can lead to adoption of improved agricultural techniques,
technologies, practices, services, and policies that will result in greater agricultural productivity and
expanded agricultural markets.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
61

October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
➢ Sex: the unique number of individuals should be entered here (i.e. no double-counting of individuals
across disaggregate choices here)
• Male;
• Female;
➢ Age Category: the unique number of individuals should be entered here (i.e. no double-counting of
individuals across disaggregate choices here)
• 15-29;
• 30+;
➢ Type of Individual: double-counting individuals across types is permitted here
• People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers, healthcare workers);
• Proprietors of USDA-assisted private sector firms (e.g. agrodealers, traders, aggregators,
processors, service providers, manufacturers);
• People in civil society (e.g. NGOs, Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs), research and academic organizations, community volunteers)
While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count their
proprietors under the "Private Sector Firms" disaggregate and not the "Civil Society"
disaggregate
• Laborers (Non-producer diversified livelihoods participants);
• Producers (e.g. farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers);
Producers should be counted under the "Producers" disaggregate, not the "Private Sector
Firms" disaggregate
SECOND LEVEL (only for the first-level disaggregate of “Producers”)
o Size:
▪ Smallholder (see definition below);
▪ Non-smallholder;
▪ Not applicable (for aquaculture);
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats:
five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20
layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports, firm records, or through census or sampling of participating firms/farms/families/individuals,
etc.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator provides a unique count of total project participants.

Individuals who are trained by a recipient as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy (e.g. cascade
training) that then go on to deliver services directly to individuals or to train others to deliver services
should be counted as participants of the project—the capacity strengthening is key for sustainability
and an important outcome in its own right. The individuals who then receive the services or training
delivered by those individuals are also considered participants. However, spontaneous spillover of
improved practices to neighbors does not count as a deliberate service delivery strategy; neighbors who
apply new practices based on observation and/or interactions with participants who have not been
trained to spread knowledge to others as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy should not be
counted under this indicator. Neighbors can be counted under Indicator 23 Number of individuals
benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3-2]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 23: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of individuals indirectly benefitting from
USDA-funded interventions. The individuals will not be directly engaged with a project activity or come
into direct contact with a set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the project. This may
include for example family members of farmers trained. Participants’ neighbors that, due to
spontaneous spillover, apply USDA-promoted improved management practices or technologies may also
be counted as indirect beneficiaries if Recipients use clearly documented assumptions that are regularly
validated through spot surveys or similar methods.
Individuals should not be double counted. Individuals may benefit from multiple interventions in one
fiscal year but should only be counted once per fiscal year. If an individual is already counted as a
participant under Indicator 22, the individual should not also be counted as an indirect beneficiary if
they are indirectly benefitting from other project interventions. For example, if a farmer is counted as a
participant after directly participating in a training course, the farmer should not also be counted as an
indirect beneficiary if another family member participates in a different training course.
RATIONALE: Tracks indirect impact of project on community or area of intervention.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Only indirect beneficiaries should be counted under this indicator. Individual beneficiaries should not
come into direct contact or receipt of an intervention or set of interventions, but should indirectly
benefit from one or more of the project’s interventions. For example, family members who benefit from
training should be counted under this indicator but farmers receiving the training should be counted as
participants.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Increased
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Agricultural Productivity
FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
FFPr RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Expanded Trade of
Agricultural Products
FFPr INDICATOR 24: Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety
nets
DEFINITION: Productive safety nets are programs that protect and strengthen food insecure households’
physical and human capital by providing regular resource transfers in exchange for time or labor.
Generally, there are three kinds of activities that can provide the foundation of a “productive safety net”
program. These are:
•
Activities which strengthen community assets (e.g., public works);
•
Activities which strengthen human assets (e.g., literacy training, and HIV, prenatal and well-baby
visits); and/or
•
Activities which strengthen household assets (e.g., livelihood diversification, agriculture
extension, micro savings and credit)
Participants in Cash For Work activities that receive regular payments in exchange for their labor
contribution to a physical community asset such as a road or irrigation canal are social assistance
beneficiaries. What sets productive safety nets apart from other social assistance programs is that the
assistance—a predictable resource transfer—is provided in exchange for labor or to offset the
opportunity cost of an investment of time. For this reason they are sometimes referred to as
“conditional” safety net programs. Another difference is an expectation that, over time, individuals or
households enrolled in a productive safety net program will “graduate” from that program.
RATIONALE: This indicator measures number of people participating in United States Government
supported social assistance programming with productive components aimed at increasing selfsufficiency of the vulnerable population. This is an output indicator and is applicable to multiple parts of
the Global Food Security Strategy results framework.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number
Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of Asset strengthened: Community assets, Human assets/capital, and Household assets
Sex: Male, Female
Duration:
• New = this is the first year the person participated in a productive safety net
• Continuing = this person participated in the previous reporting year and continues to participate
in the current reporting year
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participant-based survey, activity records
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
65

DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [ES.5-1]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

MCGOVERN-DOLE STANDARD INDICATORS SUMMARY
Indicator
Number

Result #

Title in MGD Results
Framework

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency
of
Reporting

MGD SO1

Improved Literacy of
School Age Children

outcome

Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of
primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and
understand the meaning of grade level text

Percent

Baseline,
Midterm
and Endline

MGD 1.3

outcome

Average student attendance rate in USDA supported
classrooms/schools

Percent

Biannual

MGD
1.1.2

Better Access to
School Supplies and
Materials

output

Number of teaching and learning materials provided as
a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

MGD
1.1.4

Increased Skills and
Knowledge of
Teachers

outcome

Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in
target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality
teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Annual

MGD
1.1.4

Increased Skills and
Knowledge of
Teachers

output

Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants
trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

MGD
1.1.5

Increased Skills and
Knowledge of School
Administrators

outcome

Number of school administrators and officials in target
schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or
tools as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Annual

MGD
1.1.5

Increased Skills and
Knowledge of School
Administrators

output

Number of school administrators and officials trained
or certified as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

MGD
1.3.3/
2.4

Improved School
Infrastructure/
Increased Access to
Clean Water and
Sanitation Services

output

Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings,
classrooms, improved water sources, and latrines)
rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Biannual

Improved Student
Attendance

Indicator
Number

Result #

MGD
1.3.4

MGD
1.4.2/
2.7.2

MGD
1.4.3/
1.4.4

MGD
1.4.4

MGD
1.2.1/
1.3.1/
1.2.1.1/
1.3.1.1

Title in MGD Results
Framework
Increased Student
Enrollment

Improved Policy and
Regulatory Framework

Increased
Government Support/
Increased Engagement
of Local Organizations
and Community
Groups
Increased Engagement
of Local Organizations
and Community
Groups
Increased Engagement
of Local Organizations
and Community
Groups
Reduced Short-Term
Hunger/ Increased
Economic and Cultural
Incentives/ Increased
Access to Food
(School Feeding)

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency
of
Reporting

outcome

Number of students enrolled in school receiving USDA
assistance

Number

Annual

Number of policies, regulations, or administrative
procedures in each of the following stages of
development as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Annual

output

Value of new USG commitments, and new public and
private sector investments leveraged by USDA to
support food security and nutrition

U.S. Dollar

Annual

output

Number of public-private partnerships formed as a
result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

output

Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or
similar “school” governance structures supported as a
result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

output

Quantity of take-home rations provided (in metric tons)
as a result of USDA assistance

Metric
Tons

Biannual

output
(stages 1 &
2)
outcome
(stages 3, 4
& 5)

Indicator
Number

Result #

MGD
1.2.1/
1.3.1/
1.2.1.1/
1.3.1.1

MGD
1.2.1/
1.3.1/
1.2.1.1/
1.3.1.1/
2.5

MGD SO2

Title in MGD Results
Framework
Reduced Short-Term
Hunger/ Increased
Economic and Cultural
Incentives/ Increased
Access to Food
(School Feeding)
Reduced Short-Term
Hunger/ Increased
Economic and Cultural
Incentives/ Increased
Access to Food
(School Feeding)
Reduced Short-Term
Hunger/ Increased
Economic and Cultural
Incentives/ Increased
Access to Food
(School Feeding)
Reduced Short-Term
Hunger/ Increased
Economic and Cultural
Incentives (Or
Decreased
Disincentives)/
Increased Access to
Food (School
Feeding)/Increased
Access to Preventative
Health Interventions
Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency
of
Reporting

output

Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a
result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

output

Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch)
provided to school-age children as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Biannual

output

Number of school-age children receiving daily school
meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Biannual

output

Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating
in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Annual

outcome

Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new
child health and nutrition practices as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Annual

Indicator
Number

Result #

MGD SO2

MGD 2.2

MGD 2.3

Title in MGD Results
Framework
Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices
Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices
Increased Knowledge
of Safe Food Prep and
Storage Practices

Indicator
Type

outcome

Indicator
Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new
safe food preparation and storage practices as a result
of USDA assistance
Percent of participants of community-level nutrition
interventions who practice promoted infant and young
child feeding behaviors

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency
of
Reporting

Number

Annual

Percent

Annual

output

Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation
and storage as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

Increased Knowledge
of Nutrition

output

Number of individuals trained in child health and
nutrition as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

MGD 2.3

Increased Knowledge
of Nutrition

output

Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached
with nutrition-specific interventions through USDAsupported programs

Number

Annual

MGD 2.3

Increased Knowledge
of Nutrition

output

Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached
with community-level nutrition interventions through
USDA-supported programs

Number

Annual

MGD 2.3

Increased Knowledge
of Nutrition

output

Number of pregnant women reached with nutritionspecific interventions through USDA-supported
programs

Number

Annual

MGD 2.4

output

Number of schools using an improved water source

Number

Biannual

MGD 2.4

output

Number of schools with improved sanitation facilities

Number

Biannual

MGD 2.5

output

Number of students receiving deworming medication(s)

Number

Biannual

Increased Access to
Clean Water and
Sanitation Services
Increased Access to
Clean Water and
Sanitation Services
Increased Access to
Preventative Health
Services

Indicator
Number

Result #

MGD SO1
and SO2

Title in MGD Results
Framework
Improved Literacy of
School Age Children/
Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices
Improved Literacy of
School Age Children/
Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices
Improved Literacy of
School Age Children/
Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency
of
Reporting

output

Number of individuals participating in USDA food
security programs

Number

Annual

output

Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDAfunded interventions

Number

Annual

output

Number of schools reached as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Biannual

MCGOVERN-DOLE STANDARD INDICATOR DEFINITIONS
MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
of School-Age Children

MGD SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Age
Children

MGD INDICATOR 1: Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schooling,
demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text
DEFINITION: Proportion of learners who attain the specified threshold at the end of two grades of
primary schooling, the beginning of the third year of primary schooling, or the equivalent levels of
accelerated learning programs. Students and learners in formal and non-formal education programs
should be included. Measures of the indicator will be determined in consultation with the country, and
informed by national (or regional, if applicable) curriculum standards, and by international experience.
Illustrative examples include country-specific benchmarks on national assessments that have
satisfactory psychometric validity and reliability and limited corruption issues or levels of oral fluency
based on acceptable oral assessments, e.g. demonstrating satisfactory levels of comprehension as
measured by comprehension questions on grade 2 texts, or reading a country-determined number of
words correct per minute. The language(s) of assessment will be determined by country policies. Any
assessment system with adequate psychometric validity and reliability is acceptable, e.g. ASER, EGRA,
and national assessments.
A census of all the students and learners who received the treatment or intervention is not necessary.
Rather, a statistical sample that is representative of that population is adequate. Those findings then
may be extrapolated to the population.
# of students and learners reading with sufficient understanding at
the end of the first two grade of primary schooling
MGD indicator 1 =
Total # of students and learners at the end of the first two grades of
primary schooling
RATIONALE: The indicator is useful for measuring the impact of USDA projects in improving the literacy
of school age children.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Percent
Outcome
Higher is better
Baseline, midterm, and endline
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: For students and learners in both formal and non-formal education
programs, data will be generated through early grade reading assessments (most likely oral).
Assessments should be done at baseline, midterm, and endline, using comparable assessments given at
the same grades or their equivalents (at the end of grade two, the beginning of grade 3, or at the
equivalent level of accelerated learning programs). These assessments may be carried out by or in
partnership with host governments or other organizations, national or international.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Note that the sampling approach must generate data representative at the
level of USDA interventions. If, for instance, programs intervene in only two provinces, data
72

representative of those two provinces must be collected.
Nationally-representative data cannot be disaggregated by province unless the sampling frame was
designed to do so, and is large enough for this type of disaggregation.
Testing data should be collected at the same time during each school year, if feasible.
If EGRA is used for literacy testing, evaluators must follow the standards articulated in the most recently
published EGRA Toolkit (example: https://www.globalreadingnetwork.net/eddata/early-grade-readingassessment-toolkit-second-edition-2016).
BASELINE INFO: This indicator will have a non-zero baseline percentage, representing the actual
percentage of students in targeted project schools who can read and understand the meaning of grade
level text before the project begins.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ES.1-1

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Improved Literacy
of School-Age Children

MGD 1.3: Improved Student Attendance

MGD INDICATOR 2: Average student attendance rate in USDA supported classrooms/schools
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the average attendance rate of males and females attending USDA
supported schools. The indicator tracks any change over time in the attendance rate. The indicator
doesn’t rely on tracking individual student’s attendance, but rather reflects an “attendance rate”
calculated by how many children are in attendance at a given time compared to how many could be
(based on enrollment).
“Students” are learners of school-age in formal or non-formal schools or non-school based settings for
the purpose of acquiring academic basic education, knowledge, or skills.
“USDA supported classrooms/school” is defined as those classrooms or schools that receive direct
services from a USDA-supported program. Services include, for example, school meals and/or take
home rations; subsidies for school books, uniforms, and transportation fees; school enrollment fees; and
activities focused on increasing parents’ and communities’ knowledge of the importance of schooling.
RATIONALE: The indicator is useful for measuring the impact of USDA projects in boosting the number
of students that attend school. The McGovern-Dole program legislation targets low-income areas
where children's enrollment and attendance in school is low or female enrollment and participation in
preschool or school is low. Increased attendance gives students increased opportunities to learn.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Percent
Outcome
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Depending on the accuracy of school records, student data from
school/teacher attendance records can be collected and analyzed, or data collected by Recipients during
visits using real-time headcounts and enrollment data may be used.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Data should be collected by recipients in a representative sample of schools that the project is operating
in during the reporting period. Data should be collected two or more times during the reporting period
and combined when reporting to mitigate the risk of an attendance anomaly on a single day. Recipients
should aim to collect data on “typical” school days where attendance levels are expected to realistically
reflect students’ attendance. The attendance rate may rely on school records when those records
appear accurate, but should instead rely on headcounts by recipient staff when there is doubt about the
accuracy of records.
External evaluators should replicate the attendance rate data collection and calculation method during
each evaluation to triangulate project monitoring data.
BASELINE INFO: The baseline will be a non-zero number, reflecting the average attendance rate in
schools before the project begins.
74

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
of School-Age Children

MGD 1.1.2: Better Access to School Supplies and
Materials

MGD INDICATOR 3: Number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the number of teaching and learning materials provided as a result
of USDA assistance. This may represent a range of final ‘products’, including materials that are designed
and then printed and published, or documents that are purchased and distributed. For the purposes of
this indicator, however, the same material should only be counted once: in its final stage of USDA
support.
Teaching and learning materials may include:
• textbooks
• student workbooks
• supplementary reading books, including library books or materials
• educational tapes, CDs and DVDs
• reference material in hard or electronic copies for use in preschool, primary, secondary, adult
education, and/or teacher training classes.
• support materials for educational radio, cassette, CD or TV broadcasts
Small materials and supplies (e.g. pencils, small materials produced as hand-outs in training etc.), even if
paid for by USDA funds should not be counted.
RATIONALE: Learning materials, including an adequate amount of materials per student, are critical to
supporting educational quality. This measure provides an overall sense of the scope of products
resulting from investments in this area.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Teaching/ Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
Learning Materials
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant records and reports,
school administrator/teacher records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: None
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ES.1-10.

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
of School-Age Children

MGD 1.1.4: Increased Skills and Knowledge of
Teachers

MGD INDICATOR 4: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who
demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This outcome indicator measures the number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants
who are using improved techniques and tools in their classrooms as a result of USDA assistance.
Teachers, educators, teaching assistants who have successfully completed a pre- or in-services training
program to teach in schools or equivalent non-school based settings with USDA support (i.e.
scholarships or training program funded in whole or in part with USDA funds) should be evaluated as to
whether the learned technologies and techniques are being applied in their classroom instruction.
Successful application requires that teachers, educators, and teaching assistants have incorporated the
learned methods into their curriculum and are actively applying these methods in their daily classroom
instruction.
RATIONALE: Increasing the skills and knowledge of teachers builds human capital and supports
institutional capacity building in countries. Increasing skills and knowledge of teachers will support the
improved quality of literacy instruction by fostering an environment that promotes quality teaching and
that is conducive to student learning.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Teachers / Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
Educators /
October 1-September 30
Teaching Assistants
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program observations, interviews, site
visits, and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator counts the application of improved techniques and tools
developed through USDA sponsored training, whereas the count of individuals trained is reported under
MGD Indicator 5.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy of
School-Age Children

MGD 1.1.4: Increased Skills and Knowledge
of Teachers

MGD INDICATOR 5: Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of
USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of teachers/educators/training assistants
trained or certified directly as a result of USDA funding in whole or in part.
Teachers, educators, teaching assistants who have successfully completed a pre- or in-services training
program to teach in schools or equivalent non-school based settings with USDA support (i.e.
scholarships or training program funded in whole or in part with USDA funds)
Successful completion requires that trainees meet the completion requirements of the structured
training program as defined by the program offered. Training should be at least two working days (16
hours in duration.
RATIONALE: Training teachers and/or educators builds human capital and supports institutional capacity
building in countries. This indicator provides an overall sense of scope by giving a count of the total
number of teachers/educators trained through pre-service training. Training teachers to effectively
teach literacy to children of different skill levels is essential to improving the overall quality of
instruction.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE:
INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Teachers /
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
Educators / Teaching
periods: October 1 – March 31
Assistants
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant training records and
reports. Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Trainings should be counted only if they are at least two working days in
duration (16 hours). If a trainee is trained in more than one area or instance in a given reporting period,
s/he should only be counted once in that reporting period. Participants may be counted in multiple fiscal
years if they continue receiving training across fiscal years, but should be counted only once in the lifeof-project total.
This indicator counts the individuals trained through USDA sponsored training, whereas the application
of new techniques and tools developed is reported under MGD Indicator 4.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ES.1-6.
78

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
of School-Age Children

MGD 1.1.5: Increased Skills and Knowledge of
School Administrators

MGD INDICATOR 6: Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate
use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This outcome indicator measures the total number of school administrators who are
applying the new knowledge and skills received in USDA-supported training and certification programs.
Areas of training may include finance, management (e.g. logistics, monitoring, personnel use and
support), governance (e.g., legislation, communication, enforcement), infrastructure (e.g. building,
supplies), or quality assurance for improving literacy skills.
School administrators should demonstrate the use of at least one new technique or technology in their
standard practices or procedures related to finance, management, infrastructure, or quality assurance of
instruction.
RATIONALE: Increasing the skills and knowledge of school administrators builds human capital and
supports institutional capacity building in countries. Increasing skills and knowledge of school
administrators will support the improved quality of literacy instruction by fostering an environment that
promotes quality teaching and that is conducive to student learning.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number:
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the periods:
Administrators/
October 1-September 30
Officials
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program observations, interviews, site
visits, and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
This indicator counts the application of improved techniques and tools developed through USDA
sponsored training, whereas the count of individuals trained is reported under MGD Indicator 7.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
MGD 1.1.5: Increased Skills and Knowledge of
of School-Age Children
School Administrators
MGD INDICATOR 7: Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of
USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of school administrators and officials
(e.g. principals, superintendents) trained or certified directly as a result of USDA funding in whole or in
part.
School administrators or other education officials (public or private) are trained in aspects of their
current positions, including areas such as finance, management (e.g. logistics, monitoring, personnel use
and support), governance (e.g., legislation, communication, enforcement), infrastructure (e.g. building,
supplies) or quality assurance for improving literacy skills.
Successful completion requires that trainees meet the completion requirements of the structured
training program as defined by the program offered. Training should be at least two working days (16
hours) in duration.
RATIONALE: Training school administrators or education officials builds human capital and supports
institutional capacity building in countries. Increasing skills and knowledge of school administrators,
such as school principals or superintendents, will support the improved quality of literacy instruction by
fostering an environment that promotes quality teaching and that is conducive to student learning.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number:
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
Administrators/
periods: October 1 – March 31
Officials
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant training records and
reports. Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Trainings should be counted only if they are at least two working days in
duration (16 hours); however trainings may not necessarily occur over consecutive days. If a trainee is
trained in more than one area or instance in a given reporting period, s/he should only be counted once
in that reporting period. Participants may be counted in multiple fiscal years if they continue receiving
training across fiscal years, but should be counted only once in the life-of-project total.
This indicator counts the individuals trained through USDA sponsored training, whereas the application
of new techniques and tools developed is reported under MGD Indicator 6.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ES.1-12.
80

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD 1.3.3: Improved School Infrastructure
of School-Age Children
MGD 2.4: Increased Access to Clean Water and
MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
Sanitation Services
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 8: Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, improved water
sources, and latrines) rehabilitated/constructed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the number of classrooms/schools/latrines/improved water
sources rehabilitated or constructed in whole or in part by a USDA-funded project.
Rehabilitation ranges from cosmetic upgrades such as whitewashing walls, to structural improvements
(replacing broken windows, fixing leaking roofs, rebuilding damaged walls or roofs, repairing latrines,
and upgrading fixing school kitchens), and mending broken furniture. Latrines (or toilets) that are
repaired must meet set local government standards and should also be counted. Latrines (or toilets)
counted are only those that have hand washing facilities within or near the toilets.
Classrooms are expected to be safe and secure spaces in which organized group learning takes place.
Classrooms range from environmentally-appropriate, roofed structures without walls, to traditional
four-walled structures with a roof and windows. Latrines (or toilets) constructed must allow for genderspecific latrines (or toilets) and must meet host country standards regarding the ratio of students per
squat hole.
If a classroom block is rehabilitated/constructed, the number of classrooms in that block affected by the
repair/construction should be counted. Similarly, if a block of latrines is rehabilitated/constructed, the
number of latrines affected should be counted. This indicator does not include temporary classrooms
(such as tents, open spaces set aside for instruction) frequently found in refugee settings.
An improved water source is an infrastructure improvement to a water source, a distribution system, or
a delivery point. By nature of its design and construction, the improvement is likely to protect the water
source from external contamination, in particular fecal matter.
Improved water sources are:
• Piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard
• Public tap/standpipe
• Tube well/borehole
• Protected dug well
• Protected spring
• Rainwater collection
If the water source is rehabilitated or constructed but does not meet the criteria of “improved”, it
should not be counted as it is not likely to yield potable water. Note that MGD Indicator 27 counts the
number of schools with an improved water source, whereas the number of improved water sources that
the project rehabilitates or constructs is counted using this indicator. See MGD Indicator 27 for more
detail on improved water sources.
RATIONALE: Classrooms of acceptable quality are an essential component of education, making
instruction possible, more enjoyable and more acceptable for children. Classroom construction can also
encourage parents to send their children to school especially in areas where schools were previously too
far away. Schools in flagrant disrepair are a deterrent to attendance, especially for females, a
81

distraction from instruction, and frequently unsafe and inadequate for teaching and learning in
inclement weather. Adequate school buildings positively impact school attendance.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Facilities
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of Facility:
• Classrooms
• Kitchens, cook areas
• Improved Water Sources
• Latrines
• Other school grounds or school buildings
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by observation or from program participant
records and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Facilities at schools should only be counted if they receive direct assistance
whether in whole or in part from a USDA project.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ES.1-14
(Number of Classrooms).

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD 1.3.4: Increased Student Enrollment
of School-Age Children
MGD INDICATOR 9: Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This is an outcome indicator measuring the number of school-age students or learners
formally enrolled in school or equivalent non-school based settings for the purpose of acquiring
academic basic education skills or knowledge. This number may include learners enrolled in educational
radio and/or TV programming.
Only students enrolled at schools that are directly benefitting from USDA assistance should be counted
under this indicator. For this indicator, USDA assistance to schools includes the provision of
commodities for school feeding and/or the rehabilitation of school infrastructure.
RATIONALE: Student enrollment is typically a precursor to attendance, as children usually must be
formally enrolled in order to attend class. Children must regularly attend school in order to improve
their reading skills and understanding of grade-level text.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Students
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
School Level:
• Pre-Primary
• Primary
• Secondary
SECOND LEVEL:
o Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant records and reports,
and school/teacher enrollment records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: The baseline for this indicator is a non-zero number. The baseline should reflect the
actual enrollment in project schools before the project begins.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators ES.1-3 and
ES.1-4.

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy of MGD 1.4.2 Improved Policy and Regulatory
School-Age Children
Framework
MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.7.2 Improved Policy and Regulatory
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices
Framework
MGD INDICATOR 10: Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the following
stages of development as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Number of education enabling environment policies/regulations/administrative procedures
in the areas of education, including school feeding, school finance, assessment, teacher recruitment and
selection, etc., that:
Stage 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis (review of existing
policy/regulation/administrative procedure and/or proposal of new policy/regulations/administrative
procedures
Stage 2: Underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second stage includes public
debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative procedure
Stage 3: Underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were presented for
legislation/decree to improve the policy environment for education)
Stage 4: Underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process [official approval (legislation/decree) of
new or revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority]
Stage 5: Completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority)
Other: Or were otherwise shaped by the recipient’s direct involvement.
This indicator is disaggregated by two types of policies/ regulation/ administrative procedures:
educational, and child health and nutrition. To be counted under education, actions must have, as their
ultimate purpose, improving equitable access to or the quality of education services. Child health may
include government health facilities, established procedures, materials, public information, or training.
Nutrition may include public sector investment allocated to nutrition, nutritional content of agricultural
products as provided to consumers, nutritional products, nutrition service delivery, provision of
deworming medication, school-based WASH, etc.,
Policies, regulations or administrative procedures that focus on school feeding should be captured as
educational policies, regardless of which local ministry or agency is involved. Child health and nutrition
actions besides those which focus on school feeding should be captured as child health and nutrition
policies.
Count the highest stage completed during the reporting year.
RATIONALE: The indicator measures the number of policies/regulations/administrative procedures in the
various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment for education and child health and
nutrition. It includes the development, implementation, and enforcement of policies and regulations that
support the achievement of one or more results in the MGD framework focused on improving literacy of
school-age children, or focused on increasing use of health, nutrition and dietary practices
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Policies,
Stages 1 & 2:
Because this indicator tracks
Annually covering the period:
regulations, and/or
Output
individual policies through the October 1-September 30
84

administrative
procedures and
supplementary
narrative

Stages 3, 4 & 5:
Outcome

disaggregated stages, one
should see the disaggregate
for each stage change over
time in certain ways. One
should expect the value of
disaggregates measuring the
earlier stages to decline and
the disaggregates measuring
later stages of progress to
increase as the enabling
environment is strengthened
(i.e. move from analysis to
adoption and implementation
of reforms)

DISAGGREGATION:
Type of policy:
• Educational
• Child Health and Nutrition
Stage: Disaggregates will be shown by stages (1-5) and 6 as noted above.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data collected at the project-level, through project records of activities
and capacity building carried out by the project, observation, and analysis of the host government legal
status of the various policies being addressed. Policies, legislation, and regulations should be submitted to
USDA and attached in project reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Only count policies specifically addressed and supported with USDA assistance.
Enter the name of the policy/regulation/administrative procedure and its stage in order to track movement
through the stages. Count the highest stage completed during the reporting year.
This indicator tracks the policy, regulation, or administrative procedure. Multiple project participants
working in the same country or region (with regard to regional policies) may report the same policy,
regulation, or administrative procedure as long as the program participant participated in the process and
provided assistance to the development, drafting, or formation of the law or policy.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM to
allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved
Literacy of School Age Children

MGD 1.4.3: Increased Government Support
MGD 1.4.4: Increased Engagement of Local Organizations
and Community Groups
MGD INDICATOR 11: Value of new USG commitments, and new public and private sector investments
leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition
DEFINITION: The term “investments” is defined as public or private sector resources intended to
complement existing/ongoing USDA-funded activities (i.e. education or nutrition activity, as described
below), including resources provided for purposes of cost-share or matching. While the majority of such
resources will be monetary in nature, non-monetary resources (e.g. in-kind contributions, labor, etc.)
should be expressed in their respective dollar values. Data should be collected for four categories: “host
government,” “other public sector,” “private sector”, and “new USG commitments”.
“Host Government” includes any investments from the national, regional, or local governments.
“Other public sector” includes any investments provided by the Program Participant itself, or other
Private Voluntary Organizations.
“Private sector” includes any investments from a private actor, including for-profit organizations, private
philanthropic organizations, or individuals.
“New USG commitments” refers to funds in the form of a direct loan, part of a grant, or other award
designed to leverage additional funds from private sector organizations. Subsidies paid to structure a
guarantee or insurance product do not count as new USG commitments.
“Leveraged as a result of USDA assistance” indicates that the investment was directly encouraged or
facilitated by the activities funded or resources provided by USDA.
“Investments” means the level of resources provided during each reporting year.
For multi-year activities, commitments are recorded at the outset of the activity, if made prior to the
start of the activity, or during the year when they are made, if commitments are received during
implementation of an activity.
A nutritional activity includes any activity focused on improving the nutritional content of agricultural
products provided to consumers, developing improved nutritional products, increasing support for
nutrition service delivery, etc.
An educational activity includes any activity focused on improving educational support to improve the
quality of literacy or any other lower level result in the MGD results framework such as improving access
to school supplies and materials, improved school infrastructure, increased access to food, and
improved literacy instructional materials.
This indicator is not directly paired with the preceding indicator (MGD Indicator 10) on public-private
partnerships. In other words, this indicator does not track only investments that may have been
leveraged via those partnerships, but rather is separate and broader in tracking the value of any public
or private sector investments leveraged (encouraged or facilitated) by the activities or resources
provided by USDA.
86

RATIONALE: The assumption of this indicator is that the higher the value of investment, particularly by
the host government, the greater the chances for long-term sustainability of education and nutritionrelated activities beyond USDA’s initial commitment. Private sector investment is critical because it
indicates that the investment is perceived by private agents to provide a positive financial return and
therefore is likely to lead to sustainable improvements. All of these investments are key to achieving
long-term impact in project areas by increasing host country capacity and ownership of programs.
Coordinated and complementary investments from the host government and other public and private
sector donors will help achieve improved literacy and increased use of health and dietary practices,
which then contribute to the key objective of improving the literacy of school age children and
sustaining the benefits made during project implementation to literacy, attendance, and enrollment by
graduating the project to full host-country ownership.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
U.S. Dollar
Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of investment amount:
• Host Government amount
• Other Public sector amount
• Private sector amount
• New USG Commitment amount
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by partnership records/agreements.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Convert local currency to U.S. dollars at the average market foreign exchange
rate for the reporting period. Report exchange rate in indicator narrative in FAIS.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes, partially;
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
combines EG.3.1-14 Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futurewith USDA-specific
indicator-handbook).
disaggregates

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD 1.4.4: Increased Engagement of Local
of School Age Children
Organizations and Community Groups
MGD INDICATOR 12: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Number of public-private partnerships in education or nutrition formed during the
reporting year due to USDA assistance (i.e. education or nutrition activity, as described below). Private
partnerships can be long or short in duration (length is not a criteria for measurement). Partnerships
with multiple partners should only be counted once, though each partnership for a different purpose
should be counted. A public-private alliance (partnership) is considered formed when there is a clear
agreement, usually written, to work together to achieve a common objective. There must be either a
cash or in-kind significant contribution to the effort by both the public and the private entity. A private
entity can be a for-profit entity, an NGO using private funds, a private company, a community group, or
a state-owned enterprise which seeks to make a profit (even if unsuccessfully). A public entity can be a
donor-funded program participant, a national or sub-national government, or state-owned enterprises
which are non-profit. One example of a common local-level public-private partnership in MGD projects
is a Village Savings and Loan group that contributes to a school canteen.
A project may form more than one partnership with the same entity, but this is likely to be rare. In
counting partnerships we are not counting transactions with a partner entity; we are counting the
number of partnerships formed during the reporting year. Public-private partnerships counted should
be only those formed during the current reporting year. Any partnership that was formed in a previous
year should not be included.
A nutritional activity includes any activity focused on improving the nutritional content of agricultural
products as provided to consumers, developing improved nutritional products, increasing support for
nutrition service delivery, etc.
An educational activity includes any activity focused on improving educational support to improve
quality of literacy or any other lower level result in the MGD results framework such as improving access
to school supplies and materials, improved school infrastructure, increased access to food, and
improved literacy instructional materials.
This indicator is not directly paired with the following indicator (MGD Indicator 11) on the value of
public and private investments, and USG commitments, leveraged. In other words, this indicator tracks
the number of public-private partnerships formed, and these partnerships may or may not be the same
ones that result in investments leveraged by USDA.
RATIONALE: The assumption of this indicator is that if more partnerships are formed it is likely that
there will be more investment in education or nutrition-related activities. This will help achieve
improved literacy and increased use of health and dietary practices which then contribute to the key
objective of improving the literacy of school age children and sustaining the benefits made during
project implementation to literacy, attendance, and enrollment by graduating the project to full hostcountry ownership.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number:
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the periods:
Partnerships
October 1 – March 31 and April
1 – September 30
88

DISAGGREGATION:
Type of Partnership:
• Education
• Nutrition
• Health
• Multi-focus (use this if there are several components of the above sectors in the
partnership)
• Other
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data should be collected at the project level through observation and
records of partnerships created. Partnership agreements should be submitted to USDA and attached in
biannual project reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Only count partnerships that are attributable to USDA investment.
Each partnership’s formation should only ever be reported once in order to add the total number of
partnerships across years.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
of School Age Children

MGD 1.4.4: Increased Engagement of Local
Organizations and Community Groups

MGD INDICATOR 13: Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar “school” governance
structures supported as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: A PTA, School Management Committee (SMC), or other similar governance body for an
individual school (or equivalent non-school setting) can be identified as:
• meeting at least four times during the school year
• participating in education activities by meeting with school officials quarterly
• contributing to school governance by reviewing all policies and procedures
• OR in any other way engaging to be more supportive of the school or non-school equivalent
education setting.
Within the context of each school community, Recipients may determine whether such a structure
exists, and then determine whether support in creating such a body or strengthening the existing body
is relevant.
This indicator tracks the number of such groups that are supported by USDA during the reporting period.
USDA support includes, but is not limited to, direct financial support (grants), coaching/ mentoring
provided to the group, and/or training in skills related to serving on a PTA, SMC, or equivalent
governance body.
RATIONALE: Support for PTA or other school governance structures is an important way to promote
capacity building at the grassroots, local level. Such structures promote opportunities for democracy in
action as well as improved local ownership, accountability, and educational quality.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: PTAs or
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the periods:
similar
October 1 – March 31 and April
1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data from project, school, community, and/or administrative records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The definitional criteria listed are intended to help identify what a PTA or
similar school governance structure may look like, though ultimately Recipients may determine in
context whether such structures exist. The indicator itself does not count how many meet the
suggested criteria, but rather tracks how many such groups were supported as a result of USDA
assistance.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This indicator aligns with USG Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ES.1-13.

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved
Literacy of School-Age Children

MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short-Term Hunger
MGD 1.3.1: Increased Economic and Cultural
Incentives
MGD 1.2.1.1/ 1.3.1.1: Increased Access to Food
(School Feeding)
MGD INDICATOR 14: Quantity of take-home rations provided (in metric tons) as a result of USDA
assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator will collect the total quantity of take-home rations provided during the
reporting period, in metric tons. Take-home rations are provided to a student, family, teacher, or other
person in a USDA-supported project.
Take-home rations transfer food resources to families conditional upon school enrollment and regular
attendance of children, especially females. Rations are given to families typically once a month or once
a term. They increase school participation and probably learning. Their effect depends on whether the
value of the ration offsets some of the costs of sending the child to school.
Rations may also be given as an incentive to teachers or cooks in return for their time or service.
RATIONALE: School meals, coupled with take home rations, can serve as an effective mechanism for
encouraging attendance, particularly among females, and attentiveness in school. Take home rations
also increase household access to food in the short term.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Metric
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the periods:
tons
October 1 – March 31 and April
1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: Commodity type
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participating partners will track the quantity of rations distributed
during the reporting period.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The quantity of take-home rations provided is counted under Indicator 14,
while the number of individuals receiving take-home rations is counted under MGD Indicator 15.
The number of daily school meals provided to school-age children is counted under MGD Indicator 16
and the number of individual school-age children receiving school meals is counted under MGD Indicator
17.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short-Term Hunger
of School-Age Children
MGD 1.3.1: Increased Economic and Cultural
Incentives
MGD 1.2.1.1/ 1.3.1.1: Increased Access to Food
(School Feeding)
MGD INDICATOR 15: Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Take-home rations transfer food resources to families conditional upon school enrollment
and regular attendance of children, especially females. Rations are given to families typically once a
month or once a term. They increase school participation and probably learning. Their effect depends
on whether the value of the ration offsets some of the costs of sending the child to school.
Rations may also be given as an incentive to teachers or cooks in return for their time or service.
RATIONALE: School meals, coupled with take home rations, can serve as an effective mechanism for
encouraging attendance, particularly among females. Take home rations also increase household access
to food in the short term.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Duration:
• New = this reporting period is the first period the individual received take-home rations
• Continuing = the person first received take-home rations in the previous period and continues to
receive them
Type of Beneficiary:
• Male Students
• Female Students
• Pregnant and Lactating Women
• Others
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participating partners will count the total number of individuals
receiving take home rations at the project level, through reports and program data.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The quantity of take-home rations provided is counted under MGD Indicator
14. The number of daily meals provided to school age children is counted under MGD Indicator 16 and
the number of school-age children receiving school meals is counted under MGD Indicator 17.
Individuals should not be double counted in a given fiscal year. The individual should be counted the
first time that they receive a take-home ration in that fiscal year. Individuals that receive a take-home
ration in multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project
total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
92

to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short-Term Hunger
of School-Age Children
MGD 1.3.1: Increased Economic and Cultural
Incentives
MGD 1.2.1.1/ 1.3.1.1: Increased Access to Food
(School Feeding)
MGD INDICATOR 16: Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age
children as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: A school meal may include a breakfast or lunch meal or a snack provided in the mornings
or afternoon during the school period.
A school meal is counted each time it is provided to a student in a USDA-supported project.
A school feeding program provides meals, where the primary objective is generally to provide breakfast,
mid-morning meals, lunch, or a combination (depending on the duration of the school day) to alleviate
short-term hunger, increase attention span, facilitate learning, and obviate the need for children to
leave the school to find food. School meals can be prepared in schools or in the community, or can be
delivered from centralized kitchens. They can be an important source of micronutrients if prepared
using fortified commodities, or if micronutrient powder is added during or after preparation.
RATIONALE: School meals, provided early in the school day to alleviate hunger before or while classes
are in session, will help children to be more attentive and improve concentration. Ultimately, these
children will be more successful in school and progress further and more quickly. School meals or
snacks can also alleviate specific nutritional deficiencies of school-age children. The alleviation of
hunger via school meals can be critical to improving the capacity of children to learn.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Meals
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participating partners will count the total number of school meals at
the project level, through reports and program data. For this indicator, count the number of meals
without distinguishing whether the same person received multiple meals. In that case, the person
would be counted several times, which is acceptable for this indicator.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The number of school age children receiving school meals is counted under
MGD Indicator 17. The quantity of take home rations is counted under MGD Indicator 14 and the
number of individuals receiving take-home rations in counted under Indicator 15.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None
94

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short-Term Hunger
of School-Age Children
MGD 1.3.1: Increased Economic and Cultural
Incentives
MGD 1.2.1.1/ 1.3.1.1: Increased Access to Food
(School Feeding)
MGD INDICATOR 17: Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack,
lunch) as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: A school meal may include a breakfast or lunch meal or a snack provided in the mornings
or afternoon during the school period.
A school feeding program provides meals, where the primary objective is generally to provide breakfast,
mid-morning meals, lunch, or a combination (depending on the duration of the school day) to alleviate
short-term hunger, increase attention span, facilitate learning, and obviate the need for children to
leave the school to find food. School meals can be prepared in schools or in the community, or can be
delivered from centralized kitchens. They can be an important source of micronutrients if prepared
using fortified commodities, or if micronutrient powder is added during or after preparation.
RATIONALE: School meals, provided early in the school day to alleviate hunger before or while classes
are in session, will help children to be more attentive and improve concentration. Ultimately, these
children will be more successful in school and progress further and more quickly. School meals or
snacks can also alleviate specific nutritional deficiencies of school-age children. The alleviation of
hunger via school meals can be critical to improving the capacity of children to learn.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Children
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
Duration:
• New = this reporting period is the first period the individual received daily school meals
• Continuing = the individual first received daily meals in the previous period and continues to
receive them
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participating partners will count the total number of school-age
children receiving school meals at the project level, through reports and program data.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The number of school meals provided is counted under MGD indicator 16. The
quantity of take home rations is counted under MGD Indicator 14 and the number of individuals
receiving take-home rations in counted under Indicator 15.
Students should not be double counted in a given fiscal year. The student should be counted the first
time that they receive a school meal in that fiscal year. Students that receive a school meal in multiple
fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
95

The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy
of School-Age Children
MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
Health and Dietary Practices

MGD 1.2.1: Reduced Short-Term Hunger
MGD 1.3.1: Increased Economic and Cultural
Incentives
MGD 1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1: Increased Access to Food
(School Feeding)
MGD 2.5: Increased Access to Preventative Health
Interventions
MGD INDICATOR 18: Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety
nets
DEFINITION: Productive safety nets are programs that protect and strengthen food insecure households’
physical and human capital by providing regular resource transfers in exchange for time or labor. School
feeding programs build human capital as it is used to encourage children’s attendance in school and
help them benefit from the instruction received. School meals and especially take-home rations
provided are the resources transferred to assist children in attending school and may offset the
opportunity costs to households that may, for example, rely on their children’s income from work.
Generally, there are three kinds of activities that can provide the foundation of a “productive safety net”
program. These are:
•
•
•

Activities which strengthen community assets (e.g. public works);
Activities which strengthen human assets/capital (e.g. literacy training, school feeding, maternal
and child health visits such as prenatal and well-baby visits); and/or
Activities which strengthen household assets (e.g. take-home rations)

What sets productive safety nets apart from other social assistance programs is that the assistance—a
predictable resource transfer—is provided in exchange for labor or to offset the opportunity cost of an
investment of time. For this reason they are sometimes referred to as “conditional” safety net
programs. Another difference is an expectation that, over time, individuals or households enrolled in a
productive safety net program will “graduate” from that program.
RATIONALE: Provides information on USDA assistance aimed at increasing self-sufficiency in vulnerable
populations. School feeding programs build human capital as they are used to encourage children’s
attendance in school and help them benefit from the instruction received. School feeding programs as a
social safety net provide an explicit or implicit transfer to households of the value of the food
distributed. The value of the transfers varies from school snacks to large take-home rations.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of Asset strengthened: Community assets, Human assets/capital, and Household assets
Sex: Male, Female
Duration:
• New = this is the first year the person participated in a productive safety net
• Continuing = this person participated in the previous reporting year and continues to participate
in the current reporting year
DATA SOURCE:
97

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant administrative records
and reports. Recipients should keep detailed lists of all participants.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: The key to qualifying as a social assistance beneficiary under this indicator is
the receipt of a cash or in-kind resource transfer. A conditional cash or in-kind transfer “provides poor
households with cash, food, or other benefits on condition that they keep children in school, attend
health clinics, or make other desired behavioural changes.” Therefore, students that received school
meals and/or take-home rations should be counted as social assistance beneficiaries for this indicator. If
the take-home ration size is calculated taking household requirement into account (i.e. with the
objective of providing support to the family rather than the individual) then all family members should
be counted as direct beneficiaries under this indicator. Teachers, cooks, and other school administrators
that receive school meals as a form of payment for their services should not be counted as a beneficiary
under this indicator. This indicator is usually a subset of the count of direct beneficiaries in a project
because it tracks only those listed above, recipients of a cash or in-kind resource transfer, whereas
direct beneficiaries include any participant who takes part in any project activity, including for example
government officials or administrators who are trained, or PTA leaders who are mentored.
To avoid double counting, persons should not be counted multiple times in one fiscal year or in the lifeof-project total. For example, a participant (student) receiving a school meal and a take home ration
each year would be counted once each year, and once in the life-of-project total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [ES.5-1]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices

MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices

MGD INDICATOR 19: Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new child health and nutrition
practices as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the total number of individuals who are applying the new
knowledge and skills received in USDA-supported training and certification programs.
Examples of practices include: incorporating child health, nutrition and hygiene into a school curriculum,
practices supporting dietary diversity, practices supporting proper handwashing at critical times,
diarrhea treatment and management, sanitation practices (i.e., solid waste collection and management,
safe water treatment and storage, etc.) and preventative health practices (i.e., administering deworming
medication and micronutrient supplements, where applicable).
Individuals should demonstrate the use of at least one new practice in their lives or work intended to
improve children’s health or nutritional status.
RATIONALE: Increasing the skills and knowledge of individuals who can affect children’s health and
nutritional status builds human capital and supports institutional capacity building in countries.
Applying new practices gained from training can ultimately have a positive effect on children’s health.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE:
INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program observations, interviews, site
visits, and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
This indicator counts the application of new practices developed through USDA sponsored training,
whereas the count of individuals trained is reported under MGD Indicator 23. The number of people
demonstrating use of new practices can be used as the numerator, and the number of people trained in
new practices as the denominator, to calculate the percentage of trainees who demonstrate what they
learned. USDA and recipients may use this calculation to meaningfully discuss training effectiveness and
project implementation.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices

MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices

MGD INDICATOR 20: Number of individuals who demonstrate use of new safe food preparation and
storage practices as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the total number of individuals who are applying the new
knowledge and skills received in USDA-supported training and certification programs.
Examples of practices include: proper stacking, storage and handling of food; accounting for commodity
receipt and distributions using stack cards and related efforts to maintain commodity quality and
prevent loss and damage; hygienic and sanitary meal preparation in accordance with nutritional
guidelines, regional culture and local diet; proper cleaning and disinfection of all food preparation tools,
utensils and dishes prior to use; mandatory hand washing before cooking and eating; and ensuring
adequate school warehouse standards.
Individuals should demonstrate the use of at least one new practice in their lives or work that supports
safe food preparation and storage.
RATIONALE: Safe food preparation and storage can ultimately affect health. Increasing the skills and
knowledge of individuals who can affect children’s health and nutritional status builds human capital
and supports institutional capacity building in countries. Applying new practices gained from training
can ultimately have a positive effect on children’s health.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program observations, interviews, site
visits, and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
This indicator counts the application of new practices developed through USDA sponsored training,
whereas the count of individuals trained is reported under MGD Indicator 22. The number of people
demonstrating use of new practices can be used as the numerator, and the number of people trained in
new practices as the denominator, to calculate the percentage of trainees who demonstrate what they
learned. USDA and recipients may use this calculation to meaningfully discuss training effectiveness and
project implementation.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None
100

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices

MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health, Nutrition and
Dietary Practices

MGD INDICATOR 21: Percent of participants of community-level nutrition interventions who practice
promoted infant and young child feeding behaviors
DEFINITION: This outcome indicator is directly linked to the MGD output indicator 25 (FtF HL.9-2)
Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level nutrition interventions
through USDA-supported programs. It is only applicable to projects for which indicator 25 is also
applicable.
This indicator captures the application of promoted infant and young child feeding (IYCF) behaviors by
the caregivers who participate in community-level interventions and whose children under two are
counted under MGD indicator 25.
Community-level nutrition interventions are implemented on an on-going basis at the community level
and involve multiple, repeated contacts with pregnant women and mothers/caregivers of children. At a
minimum ‘multiple contacts’ means two or more community-level interactions during the reporting
year. However, an IP does not need to track the number of contacts and can estimate this based on the
nature of the intervention. For example, a Care Group approach by its very nature includes multiple
repeated contacts. Community-level nutrition activities should always include social and behavior
change communication interventions focused on key maternal and infant and young child nutrition
practices. Common strategies to deliver community-level interventions include The Care Group Model,
Mothers’ Support Groups, Husbands’ Groups (École des Maris), and PD Hearth for malnourished
children. Facility-level Interventions that are brought to the community-level may be counted as
community-level interventions if these involve multiple, repeated contacts with the target population
(e.g. services provided by community-based health extension agents, mobile health posts).

The indicator must be customized by each project to reflect the key IYCF behaviors being promoted by
the activity and to measure the application of those behaviors by activity participants, since the specific
behaviors promoted may vary by activity. These behaviors are often small, doable actions that
ultimately should lead to changes in key infant and young child feeding behaviors, including:
1. Early initiation of breastfeeding
2. Exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months
3. Continued breastfeeding at 1 year
4. Timely introduction of solid, semi-solid or soft foods
5. Feeding minimum dietary diversity
6. Feeding minimum meal frequency
7. Feeding a minimum acceptable diet
8. Consumption of iron-rich or iron-fortified foods
The numerator for this indicator is the total number of participants of community-level nutrition
interventions who practice promoted IYCF behaviors. The denominator is total number of participants
of community-level nutrition interventions.

101

If data for this indicator are collected through a participant-based sample survey, the numerator is the
sample-weighted number of participants of community-level nutrition interventions who practice
promoted IYCF behaviors. The denominator is the sample-weighted number of participants of
community-level nutrition interventions with IYCF behavior data.
RATIONALE: Increasing the appropriate feeding of infants and young children during the critical period
between birth and a child’s second birthday is essential to prevent malnutrition and ensure optimal
growth and development. Community-level interventions are a critical component of a comprehensive
social and behavior change approach for nutrition, and are promoted as part of the USAID MultiSectoral Nutrition Strategy. Community-level interventions that promote appropriate infant and young
child feeding practices are important for reaching vulnerable populations and sustaining behaviors.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: The baseline for this indicator is a non-zero number. It should be collected before
project activities start and reflects the percent of participants who practice the promoted IYCF behaviors
already.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
[HL.9-15]
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

102

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.2: Increased Knowledge of Safe Food
Health Nutrition and Dietary Practices
Prep and Storage Practices
MGD INDICATOR 22: Number of individuals trained in safe food preparation and storage as a result of
USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of health professionals or others trained
or certified in safe food preparation and storage directly as a result of USDA funding in whole or in part.
This includes health professionals, primary health care workers, community health workers, cooks,
school personnel, volunteers, or other non-health personnel trained in safe food preparation and
storage through USDA-supported programs during the reporting year.
Training on safe food preparation and storage may cover, for example: proper procedures for storage,
preparation, cooking, serving, preservation, sanitization of food contact surfaces, and the prevention of
food contamination and food borne illnesses.
Successful completion requires that trainees meet the completion requirements of the structured
training program as defined by the program offered. Training should be at least two working days (16
hours) in duration.
RATIONALE: Development of human capacity through training is a major component of USDA-supported
health area programs in this element. Training health professionals and other community members
builds human capital and supports institutional capacity building in countries.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant training records and
reports. Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Trainings should be counted only if they are at least two working days in duration (16 hours); however
trainings may not necessarily occur over consecutive days. If a trainee is trained in more than one area
or instance in a given reporting period, s/he should only be counted once in that reporting period.
Participants may be counted in multiple fiscal years if they continue to receive training across fiscal
years, but only once in the life-of-project total.
This indicator counts the individuals trained through USDA sponsored training, whereas the application
of new practices is reported under MGD Indicator 20. The number of people demonstrating use of new
practices can be used as the numerator, and the number of people trained in new practices as the
denominator, to calculate the percentage of trainees who demonstrate what they learned. USDA and
recipients may use this calculation to meaningfully discuss training effectiveness and project
implementation.

103

104

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
Health and Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 23: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition as a result of USDA
assistance
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of health professionals or others trained
or certified in child health and nutrition directly as a result of USDA funding in whole or in part.
This includes health professionals, primary health care workers, community health workers, volunteers,
non-health personnel trained in child health and child nutrition through USDA-supported programs
during the reporting year.
Successful completion requires that trainees meet the completion requirements of the structured
training program as defined by the program offered. Training should be at least two working days (16
hours) in duration.
RATIONALE: Development of human capacity through training is a major component of USDA-supported
health area programs in this element. Training health professionals and other community members
builds human capital and supports institutional capacity building in countries.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant training records and
reports. Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Trainings should be counted only if they are at least two working days in duration (16 hours); however
trainings may not necessarily occur over consecutive days. If a trainee is trained in more than one area
or instance in a given reporting period, s/he should only be counted once in that reporting period.
Participants may be counted in multiple fiscal years if they continue to receive training across fiscal
years, but should only be counted once in the life-of-project total.
This indicator counts the individuals trained through USDA sponsored training, whereas the application
of new practices is reported under MGD Indicator 19. The number of people demonstrating use of new
practices can be used as the numerator, and the number of people trained in new practices as the
denominator, to calculate the percentage of trainees who demonstrate what they learned. USDA and
recipients may use this calculation to meaningfully discuss training effectiveness and project
implementation.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
105

FtF INDICATOR:
No

RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:

106

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 24: Number of children under five (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific
interventions through USDA-supported programs
DEFINITION: Children under 5: Children under 5 years are those 0-59 months of age. They are often
targeted by US-supported activities with nutrition objectives.
Reached by nutrition-specific interventions: A child can be counted as reached if s/he receives one or
more of the following nutrition-specific interventions directly or through the mother/caretaker:
1. Behavior change communication (BCC) interventions that promote essential infant and young
child feeding behaviors including:
o Immediate, exclusive, and continued breastfeeding
o Appropriate, adequate and safe complementary foods from 6 to 24 months of age
2. Vitamin A supplementation in the past 6 months
3. Zinc supplementation during episodes of diarrhea
4. Multiple Micronutrient Powder (MNP) supplementation
5. Treatment of severe acute malnutrition
6. Treatment of moderate acute malnutrition
7. Direct food assistance of fortified/specialized food products (i.e. CSB+, Supercereal Plus, Ready
to Use Therapeutic Foods (RUST), Ready to Use Supplementary Foods (RUSF), etc)
Implementing Partners who have a strong justification may opt out of the requirement to disaggregate
this indicator into the seven interventions and two sex disaggregates. For example, IPs may opt out if
they rely on the government health system to collect this data and these disaggregates are not included
in that system. The reason should be noted in indicator comments in the FAIS system. In this case, IPs
may report solely the total number of children under 5 reached. If only some disaggregates are
available then IPs should report both the total number and the number for each available disaggregate.
Projects that support Growth Monitoring & Promotion (GMP) interventions should report children
reached under the BCC disaggregate (#1).
Children can be double-counted across the intervention disaggregates if they receive more than one
intervention, but a unique number of children reached must be entered into the sex disaggregates.
Children should be counted only once in the life-of-project total. In order to avoid double counting
across interventions, the implementing partner should follow a two-step process:
1. First, count each child by the type of intervention. For example, a child whose mother receives
counseling on exclusive breastfeeding and who also receives vitamin A during a child health day
should be counted once under each intervention;
2. Second, eliminate double counting when estimating the total number of children under-5
reached and to disaggregate by sex. The partner may develop a system to track individual
children using unique identifiers or estimate the overlap between the different types of
interventions and subtract it from the total.
In cases where disaggregation is not possible, the unique number of children reached will likely be the
number of children reached through Vitamin A distribution campaigns, in countries that support them.
107

In Community Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) activities, some children who are discharged
as “cured” may relapse and be readmitted at a later date. There are standard methods for categorizing
children as ‘relapsed’, but due to loss to follow-up, it is generally not possible to identify these children.
Therefore, a limitation of this indicator is that there may be some double counting of children who were
treated for severe and/or moderate acute malnutrition and relapsed during the same fiscal year.
RATIONALE: Good coverage of evidence-based nutrition-specific interventions among children under 5
years of age is essential to prevent and treat malnutrition and to improve child survival. Undernutrition
is an underlying cause in 45 percent of childhood deaths.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
Intervention:
• Number of children under 5 whose parents/caretakers received behavior change communication
interventions that promote essential infant and young child feeding behaviors
• Number of children 6-59 months who received vitamin A supplementation in the past 6 months
• Number of children under 5 who received zinc supplementation during episode of diarrhea
• Number of children under 5 who received Multiple Micronutrient Powder (MNP) supplementation
• Number of children under 5 who were admitted for treatment of severe acute malnutrition
• Number of children under 5 who were admitted for treatment of moderate acute malnutrition
• Number of children under 5 who received direct food assistance
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
[HL.9-1]
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

108

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 25: Number of children under two (0-23 months) reached with community-level
nutrition interventions through USDA-supported programs
DEFINITION: Children under 2: This indicator captures the children reached from birth to 23 months,
and a separate standard indicator will count the number of pregnant women reached by USDAsupported programs (MGD Indicator 26, FtF HL.9-3). Children are counted as reached if their
mother/caregiver participated in a community-level nutrition program.
Community-level nutrition interventions: Community-level nutrition activities are implemented on an
on-going basis at the community-level and involve multiple, repeated contacts with pregnant women
and mothers/caregivers of children. At a minimum ‘multiple contacts’ means two or more communitylevel interactions during the reporting year. However, a recipient does not need to track the number of
contacts and can estimate this based on the nature of the intervention. For example, a Care Group
approach by its very nature includes multiple repeated contacts. Community-level nutrition activities
should always include social and behavior change communication interventions focused on key
maternal and infant and young child nutrition practices. Common strategies to deliver community-level
interventions include The Care Group Model, Mothers’ Support Groups, Husbands’ Groups (École des
Maris), and PD Hearth for malnourished children.
Community-level nutrition activities should coordinate with public health and nutrition campaigns such
as child health days and similar population-level outreach activities conducted at a national (usually) or
subnational level at different points in the year. Population-level campaigns may focus on delivering a
single intervention, but most commonly deliver a package of interventions that usually includes vitamin
A supplements, de-worming tablets, and routine immunization, and may include screening for acute
malnutrition, growth monitoring, and distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets. However,
children under 2 reached only by population-level campaigns should not be counted under this
indicator.
Children reached solely through community drama, comedy, or video shows should not be included.
However, projects should still use mass communication interventions like dramas to reinforce social and
behavior change communication (SBCC) messages.
Facility-level Interventions that are brought to the community-level may be counted as community-level
interventions if these involve multiple, repeated contacts with the target population (e.g. services
provided by community-based health extension agents, mobile health posts).
Children are counted as reached if their mother/caregiver participated in the community-level nutrition
program. If, after birth, the child benefits from the intervention, then the child should be counted—
regardless of the primary recipient of the information, counseling, or intervention. For example, if a
project provides counseling on complementary feeding to a mother, then the child should be counted as
reached.
Children reached by community-level nutrition programs should be counted only once per reporting
year, regardless of the number of contacts with the child, and only once in the life-of-project total.
RATIONALE: The 1,000 days between pregnancy and a child’s second birthday are the most critical
period to ensure optimum physical and cognitive development. Good coverage of nutrition projects
109

among children under 2 years of age is essential to prevent and treat malnutrition and to improve child
survival. Undernutrition is an underlying cause in 45 percent of childhood deaths.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male, Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
[HL.9-2]
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

110

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.3: Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 26: Number of pregnant women reached with nutrition-specific interventions through
USDA-supported programs
DEFINITION: Pregnant women: This indicator captures the reach of activities that are targeted toward
women during pregnancy, intended to contribute to the health of both the mother and the child, and to
positive birth outcomes. A separate standard indicator will count the number of children under 2
reached by USG-supported programs (MGD Indicator 25, FtF HL.9-2).
Nutrition-specific interventions: A pregnant woman can be counted as reached if she receives one or
more of the following interventions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Iron and folic acid supplementation
Counseling on maternal and/or child nutrition
Calcium supplementation
Multiple micronutrient supplementation
Direct food assistance of fortified/specialized food products (i.e. CSB+, Supercereal Plus, RUTF,
RUSF, etc)

Nutrition interventions for women are often delivered at the facility level, included in the package of
antenatal care, but they may also be delivered through community-level platforms, such as care groups
or community health extension activities.
Iron and folic acid (IFA) supplementation is a commonly implemented intervention for pregnant women,
often with broad coverage. Ideally, however, pregnant women should receive nutrition interventions
beyond IFA, within a comprehensive Antenatal Care (ANC) program informed by the local epidemiology
of nutrient deficiencies. A woman is reached with IFA if she receives the IFA according to national
guidelines regardless of the number of days she adheres. If a woman only receives Iron or only Folic
Acid, she would not be counted as reached.
If the project contributed to “supply” side activities (e.g. procuring the commodity), then the women
reached through these interventions can be counted as reached. If the activities are only “demand”
creation (e.g. awareness-raising), then they should not be counted under this indicator.
The nutrition interventions during pregnancy listed above affect neonatal health outcomes such as low
birth weight, small for gestational age, preterm birth, and cretinism. Nevertheless, pregnant women
reached by these interventions should be counted under this indicator, and not counted as a “child
reached” under the two other nutrition-related MGD indicators: MGD indicator 24 Number of children
under 5 (0-59 months) reached with nutrition-specific interventions through USDA-supported programs;
MGD indicator 25 Number of children under 2 (0-23 months) reached with community-level nutrition
interventions through USDA-supported programs.
Women can be double-counted across the intervention disaggregates if they receive more than one
intervention, but a unique number of women reached must be entered into the age disaggregates.
Women should be counted only once in the life-of-project total. In order to avoid double counting
across interventions, the Recipient should follow a two-step process:
1. First, count each pregnant woman by the type of intervention. For example, a woman who
111

receives IFA and who also receives nutrition counseling should be counted twice, once under
each intervention;
2. Second, eliminate double counting when estimating the total number of pregnant women
reached and to disaggregate by age group. The partner should estimate the overlap between
the different types of interventions. For example, if 100 women receive comprehensive facilitybased ANC care and 20 of those women are also participants in a community-based nutrition
SBCC program, the total number of pregnant women reported in aggregate is only 100, not 120.
RATIONALE: Good coverage of nutrition-specific interventions among pregnant women is essential to
prevent both child and maternal undernutrition and to improve survival. Undernutrition is an
underlying cause in 45 percent of childhood deaths. Part of this burden can be alleviated through
maternal nutrition interventions. Moreover, maternal anemia is estimated to contribute to 20 percent
of maternal deaths.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Intervention:
• Number of women receiving iron and folic acid supplementation
• Number of women receiving counseling on maternal and/or child nutrition
• Number of women receiving calcium supplementation
• Number of women receiving multiple micronutrient supplementation
• Number of women receiving direct food assistance of fortified/specialized food products
Age: Number of women < 19 years of age; Number of women > or = 19 years of age.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
[HL.9-3]
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

112

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.4: Increased Access to Clean Water and
Health and Dietary Practices
Sanitation Services
MGD INDICATOR 27: Number of schools using an improved water source
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the number of project/targeted schools using an improved water
source. To determine whether a school is using an improved water source, the school administrator is
asked:
1. To identify the main source of water for the school
2. Whether the water is normally available from the identified source(s)
3. Whether the water was unavailable from the identified source(s) in the past two weeks for a day
or longer
An improved water source is an infrastructure improvement to a water source, a distribution system, or
a delivery point. By nature of its design and construction, the improvement is likely to protect the water
source from external contamination, in particular fecal matter.
Improved water sources are:
• Piped water into dwelling, plot, or yard
• Public tap/standpipe
• Tube well/borehole
• Protected dug well
• Protected spring
• Rainwater collection
Unimproved water sources are:
• Unprotected dug well
• Unprotected spring
• Cart with small tank/drum
• Tanker truck
• Surface water (river, dam, lake, pond, stream, canal, or
• irrigation channel)
• Bottled water
Note: Bottled water is considered unimproved water by default. However, organizations can opt to
consider “bottled water” an improved drinking water source if they can determine that the bottled
water is of reliable quality and that the all students, teachers, and cooks use bottled water for all
drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene.
RATIONALE: Poor sanitation, water and hygiene have many serious repercussions. Inadequate access to
safe water and sanitation services, coupled with poor hygiene practices, kills and sickens thousands of
children every day. Illness prevents children from attending school. Access to clean water at the
schools is vital to ensure safe food preparation and improved hygiene practices, including hand washing
before meals.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL:
DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Schools
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
113

DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected at the project level, through reports and
program data.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator measures the number of schools using a clean water source. The
water source must be accessible to the school for use every day of the school year for the school to be
considered one that has access to a clean water source. The water source does not need to be
implemented or installed by the project to be counted as a clean water source. The improved water
source should be functioning as designed, not “present but dysfunctional”, to count.
BASELINE INFO: Recognizing that some schools may have an improved water source prior to project
start, this indicator may have a non-zero baseline.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

114

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of Health and MGD 2.4: Increased Access to Clean
Dietary Practices
Water and Sanitation Services
MGD INDICATOR 28: Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities
DEFINITION: This indicator measures whether there are adequate sanitary facilities at each
project/targeted school and whether that sanitary facility meets the improved sanitation standards
defined in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). To be considered adequate, the school must
have separate improved sanitation facilities available for the use of both males and females. The
sanitation facilities must meet the definition of an improved sanitation facility as noted below:
Improved sanitation is defined as:
• Flush or pour/flush facilities connected to a:
o Piped sewer system
o Septic system
o Pit latrine
• Pit latrines with a slab
• Composting toilets
• Ventilated improved pit latrines
Unimproved sanitation includes:
• Flush or pour/flush toilets without a sewer connection
• Pit latrines without slab/open pit
• Bucket latrines
• Hanging toilets/latrines
• No facilities, open defecation
RATIONALE: Poor sanitation, water and hygiene have many serious repercussions. Inadequate access to
safe water and sanitation services, coupled with poor hygiene practices, kills and sickens thousands of
children every day. Children – and particularly females – are often denied their right to education
because their schools lack private and decent sanitation facilities.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE:
INDICATOR LEVEL:
DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Schools
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected at the project level, through reports and
program data.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator measures the number of schools that have improved sanitation
facilities. It does not measure the number of sanitation facilities constructed by the project or the
number of sanitation facilities at the schools. Organizations should consider whether the sanitation
facilities at the school are adequate in serving the needs of the students – particularly female students –
at each school. The sanitation facility should be functioning as designed, not “present but
dysfunctional”, to count.
BASELINE INFO: Recognizing that some schools may have improved sanitary facilities prior to project
115

start, this indicator may have a non-zero baseline.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

116

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD 2.4: Increased Access to Preventative Health
Health and Dietary Practices
Services
MGD INDICATOR 29: Number of students receiving deworming medication(s)
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the number of students in a fiscal year that have received
deworming medication(s), usually through the distribution of deworming tablets at school.
Deworming tablets can be distributed directly through the implementing organization or through a
partner organization or government. In designing an MGD project, implementers must consider
whether the regions they are working in require deworming. They must also determine which
medications they are using in the deworming treatment, the correct dosage for the type of medication
used, and the frequency of the treatment.
Medications and doses recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for use in large-scale
school deworming programs include:
•

For soil-transmitted helminths: albendazole (400mg); mebendazole (500mg), or levamisole
(80mg).

•

For schistosomes: praziquantel (40mg/kg)

The WHO recommends the following treatment guidelines for the two types of helminth species most
appropriately addressed through school-based deworming interventions:
•

For soil-transmitted helminth (STH) infections, schools in high-risk areas with 50% or more
children infected should implement treatment of all school-age children twice a year. Schools in
low-risk areas with infection rates of 20% or more, but under 50%, should implement treatment
of all school-age children once a year.

•

For schistosomes, schools in high-risk areas with 50% or more children infected should
implement treatment of all school-age children once a year. Schools in moderate-risk areas of
10% or more, but under 50%, should treat all school-age children once every two years and
schools in low-risk areas of more than 1%, but less than 10%, should treat all school-age children
twice during their primary-school years (i.e. once on entry and once on exit).
RATIONALE: Deworming tablets are often given to children to decrease the incidence of soil-transmitted
helminth infections, such as roundworm, hookworm, whipworm, and schistosomes. These infections
are among the most common infections in developing countries and impair the nutritional status of
children infected. Regular deworming contributes to good health and nutrition for school-age children,
which in turn leads to increased enrollment and attendance, reduced class repetition, and increased
educational attainment and performance.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Students
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
117

HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Participating partners will count the total number of individuals
receiving the medication(s) at the project level, through reports and program data. The data are
normally obtained from forms completed by the health professional administering the treatment. If the
accuracy of the data collected via the forms is questioned, the project may consider conducting a
“confirmation survey” to verify the information in a small sample of schools.
According to monitoring and evaluation guidelines established by WHO, to improve the accuracy of
data, this indicator should be collected immediately after the administration of a round of deworming
medications.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: As noted above, in determining the appropriate treatment for the specific
beneficiary student population of the project, organizations should work with the Ministry of Health and
follow guidance provided by the World Health Organization,
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548267_eng.pdf?ua=1
Students should only be counted once per fiscal year. Students that are treated for worms in multiple
fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

118

•
•

School-aged children who are recipients of USG school feeding programs
Teachers, administrators, government personnel, parents, other community members, and
anyone participating in training
Members of households reached with household-level interventions (households with new
access to basic sanitation through our work, households receiving family-sized rations);
Adults that projects or project-supported actors reach directly through nutrition-specific and
community-level nutrition interventions, (e.g. parents and other caregivers participating in
community care groups, healthcare workers provided with in-service training on how to manage
acute malnutrition), but not children reached with nutrition-specific or community-based
interventions, who are counted under MGD indicators 24 and 25 instead;
People reached by productive safety nets, community-based micro-finance and diversified
livelihood activities through our assistance;
People in civil society organizations and government whose skills and capacity have been
strengthened by projects or project-supported actors;

Individuals should not be double counted. Individuals may receive multiple interventions in one fiscal
year but should only be counted upon first receipt of project interventions. For example, if one
individual participates in multiple USDA-sponsored training courses in a given fiscal year, they will only
be counted one time in that fiscal year. Individuals participating in USDA-sponsored training courses in
multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
RATIONALE: This indicator is designed to capture the breadth of our food security work. The indicator
tracks access to services and overall project direct beneficiaries.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
➢ Sex: the unique number of individuals should be entered here (i.e. no double-counting of individuals
across disaggregate choices here)
119

•
•

Male;
Female;

➢ Age Category: the unique number of individuals should be entered here (i.e. no double-counting of
individuals across disaggregate choices here)
• School-aged children (only to be used for counting those reached by USG school feeding
programs; report the total reached with school feeding regardless of actual age)
• 15-29;
• 30+
➢ Type of Individual: double-counting individuals across types is permitted here
• Parents/caregivers;
• Household members (household-level interventions only), such as new access to basic sanitation
and/or receipt of family rations;
• School-aged children (i.e. those participating in school feeding programs);
• People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers, healthcare workers);
• Proprietors of USDA-assisted private sector firms (e.g. agrodealers, traders, aggregators,
processors, service providers, manufacturers);
• People in civil society (e.g. NGOs, CBOs, CSOs, research and academic organizations, community
volunteers)
While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count their
proprietors under the "Private Sector Firms" disaggregate and not the "Civil Society"
disaggregate
• Laborers (Non-producer diversified livelihoods participants);
• Producers (e.g. farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers);
Producers should be counted under the "Producers" disaggregate, not the "Private Sector
Firms" disaggregate
SECOND LEVEL (only for the first-level disaggregate of “Producers”)
o Size:
▪ Smallholder (see definition below);
▪ Non-smallholder;
▪ Not applicable (for aquaculture);
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the
Future definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of
arable land or equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking
cows; sheep and goats: five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows;
pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20 layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to
own the land or livestock.

DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports, firm records, or through census or sampling of participating firms/farms/families/individuals,
etc.
120

MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator provides a unique count of total project participants.
Individuals who are trained by a recipient as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy (e.g. cascade
training) that then go on to deliver services directly to individuals or to train others to deliver services
should be counted as direct participants of the project—the capacity strengthening is key for
sustainability and an important outcome in its own right. The individuals who then receive the services
or training delivered by those individuals are also considered participants. However, spontaneous
spillover of improved practices to neighbors does not count as a deliberate service delivery strategy;
neighbors who apply new practices based on observation and/or interactions with participants who
have not been trained to spread knowledge to others as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy
should not be counted under this indicator. Neighbors can be counted under MGD indicator 31 Number
of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions.
Only direct beneficiaries should be counted. Indirect beneficiaries should not be counted under this
indicator. Individual beneficiaries should come into direct contact or receipt of an intervention or set of
interventions (i.e. children who receive school meals, tuition waivers, uniforms, books). Family
members benefiting from take home rations would all count but if children in the family also receive
school meals they should not be double counted.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
[EG.3-2]
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

121

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Age
of School-Age Children
Children
MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health, Nutrition and
Health and Dietary Practices
Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 31: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of individuals indirectly benefitting from
USDA-funded interventions. The individuals will not be directly engaged with a project activity or come
into direct contact with a set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the project. This may
include, for example, family members of students receiving school meals. Participants’ neighbors that,
due to spontaneous spillover, apply USDA-promoted improved practices or technologies may also be
counted as indirect beneficiaries if Recipients use clearly documented assumptions that are regularly
validated through spot surveys or similar methods.
Individuals should not be double counted. Individuals may benefit from multiple interventions in one
fiscal year but should only be counted once per fiscal year. If an individual is already counted as a direct
beneficiary, the individual should not also be counted as an indirect beneficiary if they are indirectly
benefitting from other project interventions. For example, if a family receives take home rations, the
family members would be counted as direct beneficiaries and should not also be counted as an indirect
beneficiary as a family member of a student receiving meals at the school.
RATIONALE: This indicator tracks indirect impact of project on community or area of intervention.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant beneficiary tracking
records and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Only indirect beneficiaries should be counted under this indicator. Individual beneficiaries should not
come into direct contact or receipt of an intervention or set of interventions, but should indirectly
benefit from one or more of the project’s interventions.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

122

MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 1: Improved Literacy MGD SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Age
of School Age Children
Children
MGD RESULTS FRAMEWORK 2: Increased Use of
MGD SO2: Increased Use of Health, Nutrition and
Health, Nutrition and Dietary Practices
Dietary Practices
MGD INDICATOR 32: Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The indicator tracks the number of schools reached during the reporting period by any
project activity. While this will commonly be schools reached with school feeding, it will also count
schools reached with any other activity (even absent feeding), such as teacher training or other capacitybuilding activities, facilities improvements, PTA strengthening, etc.
RATIONALE: The school is the hub of many program activities and having a simple school count is useful
in reflecting the breadth of the program.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Schools
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from recipient records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No

123

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCUREMENT STANDARD INDICATORS
SUMMARY
Indicator
Number

Result #

Title in LRP Results
Framework
Improved Effectiveness of
Food Assistance through
Local and Regional
Procurement
Improved Effectiveness of
Food Assistance through
Local and Regional
Procurement
Improved Effectiveness of
Food Assistance through
Local and Regional
Procurement
Improved CostEffectiveness of Food
Assistance

Indicator
Type

Indicator

Feed the
Future?

Unit of
Measure

Frequency of
Reporting

output

Number of individuals participating in USDA food
security programs

Number

Annual

output

Number of individuals benefiting indirectly as a
result of USDA assistance

Number

Annual

output

Number of social assistance beneficiaries
participating in productive safety nets as a result
of USDA assistance

Number

Annual

output

Cost of transport, storage and handling of
commodity procured as a result of USDA
assistance (by commodity)

U.S. Dollars

Biannual

LRP SO1

LRP 1.1

LRP 1.1.1

Improved CostEffectiveness of
Procurement

output

Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA
assistance (by commodity and source country)

U.S. Dollars

Biannual

LRP 1.3.2

Strengthened Local and
Regional Food Market
Systems

output

Quantity of commodity procured as a result of
USDA assistance (by commodity and source
country)

Metric Tons

Biannual

LRP
1.3.2.1

Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving
USDA assistance

U.S. Dollar

Annual

Increased Agricultural
Productivity

outcome

124

Indicator
Number

Result #

Title in LRP Results
Framework

LRP
1.3.2.1

Increased Agricultural
Productivity

LRP
1.3.2.2

Increased Value Added to
Post-Production
Agricultural Products

Indicator
Type

outcome

output

Unit of
Measure

Frequency of
Reporting

Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms
receiving USDA assistance

Metric Tons

Annual

Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or
cold storage) as a result of USDA Assistance

Cubic
Meters

Biannual

Number

Annual

Number

Biannual

Number

Annual

Number of policies, regulations and/or
administrative procedures in each of the following
stages of development as a result of USDA
assistance
Number of individuals who have received shortterm agricultural sector productivity or food
security training as a result of USDA assistance
Number of individuals in the agriculture system
who have applied improved management
practices or technologies with USDA assistance

LRP 1.4.2

Improved Policy and
Regulatory Framework

LRP 1.4.3

Improved Capacity of
Relevant Organizations

output

LRP 1.4.3

Improved Capacity of
Relevant Organizations

outcome

LRP 1.4.3/
LRP 1.4.1

Improved Capacity of
Relevant Organizations/
Improved Capacity of
Government Institutions

output

Number of people trained in disaster
preparedness as a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

LRP 1.4.4

Increased Leverage of
Private-Sector Resources

output

Number of public-private partnerships formed as
a result of USDA assistance

Number

Biannual

LRP 1.4.4/
LRP
1.3.2.3

outcome

Value of new USG commitments and new public
and private sector investment leveraged by USDA
to support food security and nutrition

U.S. Dollar

Annual

LRP SO1

Number of schools reached as a result of USDA
assistance

Number

Biannual

Increased Leverage of
Private-Sector Resources/
Increased Access to
Markets to Sell Agricultural
Products
Improved Effectiveness of
Food Assistance through
Local and Regional
Procurement

output and
outcome

Feed the
Future?

Indicator

output

125

LOCAL AND REGIONAL PROCUREMENT STANDARD
INDICATORS DEFINITIONS
LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement
LRP INDICATOR 1: Number of individuals participating in USDA food security programs
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of individuals directly participating in
USDA‐funded interventions, including those we reach directly, those reached as part of a deliberate
service strategy, and those participating in the markets we strengthen. An individual is a participant if
s/he comes into direct contact with the set of interventions (goods or services) provided or facilitated by
the activity. Individuals merely contacted or involved in an activity through brief attendance (non‐
recurring participation) do not count under this indicator. A participating individual counts if one can
reasonably expect, and hold recipients responsible for achieving progress toward, changes in behaviors
or other outcomes for these individuals based on the level of services and/or goods provided or
accessed. Producers with increased access to goods, services and markets for their products and who
purchase from or sell to market actors that have been strengthened as a result of our activities are
considered to have received a significant intervention.
This indicator counts, with some exceptions listed below, all the individuals participating in LRP
activities, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Individuals should not be double counted. Individuals may receive multiple interventions in one fiscal
year but should only be counted upon first receipt of project interventions. For example, if one
individual participates in multiple USDA-sponsored training courses in a given fiscal year, they will only
be counted one time in that fiscal year. Individuals participating in USDA-sponsored training courses in
multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
RATIONALE: This indicator is designed to capture the breadth of our food security work. The indicator
tracks access to services and overall project direct beneficiaries. This indicator tracks access to goods
and services that can lead to adoption of improved agricultural techniques, technologies, practices,
126

services, and policies that will result in greater agricultural productivity and expanded agricultural
markets.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
➢ Sex: the unique number of individuals should be entered here (i.e. no double-counting of individuals
across disaggregate choices here)
• Male;
• Female;
➢ Age Category: the unique number of individuals should be entered here (i.e. no double-counting of
individuals across disaggregate choices here)
• 15-29;
• 30+;
➢ Type of Individual: double-counting individuals across types is permitted here
• Parents/caregivers;
• Household members (household-level interventions only), such as new access to basic
sanitation and/or receipt of family rations;
• School-aged children (i.e. those participating in school feeding programs);
• People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers, healthcare workers);
• Proprietors of USDA-assisted private sector firms (e.g. agrodealers, traders, aggregators,
processors, service providers, manufacturers);
• People in civil society (e.g. NGOs, Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs), research and academic organizations, community volunteers)
While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only count their
proprietors under the "Private Sector Firms" disaggregate and not the "Civil Society"
disaggregate
• Laborers (Non-producer diversified livelihoods participants);
• Producers (e.g. farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers);
Producers should be counted under the "Producers" disaggregate, not the "Private Sector
Firms" disaggregate
SECOND LEVEL (only for the first-level disaggregate of “Producers”)
o Size:
▪ Smallholder (see definition below);
▪ Non-smallholder;
▪ Not applicable (for aquaculture);
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats:
five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20
layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
DATA SOURCE:
127

WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant tracking records and
reports, firm records, or through census or sampling of participating firms/farms/families/individuals,
etc.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator provides a unique count of total project participants.
Individuals who are trained by a recipient as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy (e.g. cascade
training) that then go on to deliver services directly to individuals or to train others to deliver services
should be counted as participants of the project—the capacity strengthening is key for sustainability
and an important outcome in its own right. The individuals who then receive the services or training
delivered by those individuals are also considered participants. However, spontaneous spillover of
improved practices to neighbors does not count as a deliberate service delivery strategy; neighbors who
apply new practices based on observation and/or interactions with participants who have not been
trained to spread knowledge to others as part of a deliberate service delivery strategy should not be
counted under this indicator. Neighbors can be counted under LRP Indicator 2 Number of individuals
benefiting indirectly as a result of USDA assistance.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3-2]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

128

LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement
LRP INDICATOR 2: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions
DEFINITION: This is an output indicator measuring the number of individuals indirectly benefitting from
USDA-funded interventions. The individuals will not be directly engaged with a project activity or come
into direct contact with a set of interventions (goods or services) provided by the project. This may
include, for example, family members of students receiving school meals. Participants’ neighbors that,
due to spontaneous spillover, apply USDA-promoted improved practices or technologies may also be
counted as indirect beneficiaries if Recipients use clearly documented assumptions that are regularly
validated through spot surveys or similar methods.
Individuals should not be double counted. Individuals may benefit from multiple interventions in one
fiscal year but should only be counted once per fiscal year. If an individual is already counted as a direct
beneficiary, the individual should not also be counted as an indirect beneficiary if they are indirectly
benefitting from other project interventions.
RATIONALE: This indicator tracks the indirect impact of a project on the community or area of
intervention.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant beneficiary tracking
records and reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Only indirect beneficiaries should be counted under this indicator. Individual beneficiaries should not
come into direct contact or receipt of an intervention or set of interventions, but should indirectly
benefit from one or more of the project’s interventions.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

129

LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement
LRP INDICATOR 3: Number of USDA social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets
DEFINITION: Productive safety nets are programs that protect and strengthen food insecure households’
physical and human capital by providing regular resource transfers in exchange for time or labor. School
feeding programs build human capital as it is used to encourage children’s attendance in school and
help them benefit from the instruction received. School meals and especially take-home rations
provided are the resources transferred to assist children in attending school and may offset the
opportunity costs to households that may, for example, rely on their children’s income from work.
Generally, there are three kinds of activities that can provide the foundation of a “productive safety net”
program. These are:
•
•
•

health clinics, or make other desired behavioural changes.” Therefore, students that received school
meals and/or take-home rations should be counted as social assistance beneficiaries for this indicator. If
the take-home ration size is calculated taking household requirement into account (i.e. with the
objective of providing support to the family rather than the individual) then all family members should
be counted as direct beneficiaries under this indicator. Teachers, cooks, and other school administrators
that receive school meals as a form of payment for their services should not be counted as a beneficiary
under this indicator. This indicator is usually a subset of the count of direct beneficiaries in a project
because it tracks only those listed above, recipients of a cash or in-kind resource transfer, whereas
direct beneficiaries include any participant who takes part in any project activity, including for example
government officials or administrators who are trained, or PTA leaders who are mentored.
To avoid double counting, persons should not be counted multiple times in one fiscal year or in the lifeof-project total. For example, a participant (student) receiving a school meal and a take home ration
each year would be counted once each year, and once in the life-of-project total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [ES.5-1]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-future-indicatorhandbook).

131

LRP 1.1: Improved Cost-Effectiveness of Food Assistance
LRP INDICATOR 4: Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodity procured as a result of USDA
assistance (by commodity)
DEFINITION: This indicator will collect the cost (in US dollars) of transport, storage and handling for
procured commodities by commodity type.
Costs should reflect all necessary costs for procured commodities. Cost should include storage,
warehousing and commodity distribution costs; internal transport via rail, truck or barge transportation;
commodity monitoring in storage and at distribution sites; vehicle procurement; in-country operational
costs, and others, for the duration of a program. Cost should also include commodity quality and safety
testing.
RATIONALE: Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodities procured provides key information in
the estimation of total LRP costs (combined with commodity costs) and is a measure of the LRP program’s
impacts on the local or regional transport markets in the country or region receiving USDA assistance. This
measurement also helps track access and barriers to markets as it relates to the availability of commodities
in the beneficiary areas.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
US Dollars
Output
Lower is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Commodity Type: Commodity procured
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by project records, firm/farm records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance.
Convert local currency to USD at the average market foreign exchange rate for the reporting period. Report
exchange rate in comments in FAIS.
Note that the quantity (in metric tons) of commodities procured will be reported in LRP Indicator 6. There
should be a direct link between the cost of freight of commodities procured reported for this indicator and
the volume (in metric tons) of reported in LRP Indicator 6. Data for indicators 6 and 4 must be reported so
that USDA can calculate the freight cost per metric ton of commodities procured.
There must also be a direct link between the cost of the procured commodities in LRP indicator 5 and costs
of transport, storage and handling of commodities procured. The sum of LRP indicators 5 and 4 should be
the total cost associated with the procurement, transport and delivery of commodities.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM to
allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None
132

LRP 1.1.1: Improved Cost-Effectiveness of Procurement
LRP INDICATOR 5: Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity and source
country)
DEFINITION: This indicator will collect the cost (in US dollars) of procured commodities by commodity type
and source country.
The cost reported for the indicator is the actual cost of the procured commodities during the reporting
period. Costs of procured commodities exclude all freight costs. Freight costs (ocean, inland, and internal)
are reported in LRP Indicator 4.
RATIONALE: Value (in US dollars) of procured commodities is a measure of the LRP program’s impacts on
the local or regional market in the country or region receiving USDA assistance. This measurement also
helps track access to markets and availability of commodities in the beneficiary areas.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
US Dollars
Output
Lower is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Source Country: Country where the commodity was procured.
Commodity Type: Commodity procured.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by project records, firm/farm records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance. There
should be a direct link between cost of commodities procured and direct beneficiaries (the number of
individuals participating, LRP Indicator 1). Direct beneficiaries should include those beneficiaries receiving
commodities through take-home rations, school meals or snacks, or direct distribution as a result of
emergency assistance. Data should only be collected from direct project beneficiaries. These beneficiaries
should be reported in LRP Indicator 1.
Convert local currency to USD at the average market foreign exchange rate for the reporting period.
Report exchange rate in comments in FAIS.
Note that the quantity (in metric tons) of commodities procured will be reported in LRP Indicator 6. There
should be a direct link between the cost of procured commodities reported for this Indicator and the
volume (in metric tons) of purchases reported in LRP Indicator 6. Data for indicators 6 and 5 must be
reported so that USDA can calculate the cost per metric ton of commodities procured.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM to
allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

133

LRP 1.3.2: Strengthened Local and Regional Food Market Systems
LRP INDICATOR 6: Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of USDA assistance (by commodity
and source country)
DEFINITION: This indicator will collect the quantity of commodities procured (in metric tons (MT) through
USDA local and regional procurement program. This includes the quantity of all procured commodity(ies)
as a result of USDA investment during the reporting period.
RATIONALE: Quantity (in MT) of procured commodities at the local and regional level indicates the
amount of food provided to direct beneficiaries and is an indication of the availability of local foods for
those beneficiaries receiving USDA assistance.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Metric Tons
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Source Country: Country where the commodity was procured.
Commodity Type: Commodity procured.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by project procurement records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance. There
should be a direct link between quantity of commodities procured and direct beneficiaries (the number of
individuals participating, LRP Indicator 1). Direct beneficiaries should include those beneficiaries receiving
commodities through take-home rations, school meals or snacks, or direct distribution as a result of
emergency assistance. These beneficiaries should be reported in LRP Indicator 1.
Quantity (in metric tons) of procured commodities should also be directly related to value of procurements
measured in LRP Indicator 5.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM to
allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

134

LRP 1.3.2.1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
LRP INDICATOR 7: Value of annual sales of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the value in U.S. dollars of the total amount of sales of products
and services by USDA-assisted farms and firms during the reporting year within USDA-supported
agricultural commodity value chains or markets. This indicator also collects additional data points on
the value of sales in local currency and the number of activity participants, including the number of
producers and the number of assisted private sector firms.
Examples of USDA assistance include facilitating access to improved seeds and other inputs, to
extension, business development and financial services, and to micro-enterprise loans; providing
technical support in production techniques; strengthening linkages to markets; and other activities that
benefit producers or private sector firms in the agriculture and food system.
Annual sales include all sales by farms and firms participating in USDA-funded activities. This includes
producers, such as farmers, fishers, and ranchers; and private sector non-farm enterprises, such as
aggregators, input suppliers and distributors, traders, or processors of the targeted commodity(ies)
throughout the value chain. In value-chain-facilitation and other market-strengthening activities,
activity participants include the private sector firms with direct contact with the USDA-funded activity
and the producers and other customers buying from or selling to the USDA-assisted firms. USDA
recognizes the difficulty and cost to collect sales data directly from producers, especially when working
with firms though a market-system approach intended to strengthen the links between producers and
firms that purchase from them for onward sales, processing, etc. In these cases, recipients may consider
collecting data from firms on producers who sold to the firms while collecting data on sales of the firms,
rather than attempting to collect sales data from the producers directly. Recipients can then report
both producer and firm sales under the appropriate disaggregate.
“Private sector” includes any privately-led agricultural enterprise managed by a for-profit company. A
community-based organization (CBO) or nongovernmental organization (NGO) may be included if the
CBO or NGO engages in for-profit agricultural activity. Activity participants may be involved in
agricultural production, agro-processing, wholesale or retail sales, fisheries, input supply, or other
business activities in USDA-assisted value chains and/or markets.
Only count sales in the reporting year that are attributable to USDA, i.e. where USDA assisted the
individual farmer or firm, or the market actor with which they are engaged directly, and for those value
chains/commodities/markets which USDA supports.
Under participants, count the number of assisted producers for whom sales data are available. Include
producers reached directly with outreach and those buying from or selling to USDA-assisted firms in a
systems strengthening approach. For firms, count the USDA-assisted firm as the participant.
It is essential that a Baseline Year Sales data point be entered. If data on the total value of sales by
participant farms or firms prior to USDA-funded activity implementation is not available, do not leave
the baseline blank or enter ‘0’. Use the earliest Reporting Year Sales actual as the Baseline Year Sales.
The number of participants in USDA-funded activities often increases over time as the activity rolls out.
Unless an activity has identified all prospective participants at the time the baseline is established, the
baseline sales value will only include sales made by participant farms and firms identified when the
baseline is established during the first year of implementation. The baseline sales value will not include
135

the baselines from farms and firms added in subsequent years. To address this issue, USDA requires
reporting the number of participants, both producers and private sector firms for each value chain
product or service along with baseline and reporting year sales. These data points can be used to
calculate average sales per participant at baseline, disaggregated by farm and firm and assist with
interpreting the reasons for an observed growth in the value of sales. To generate meaningful out -year
targets for annual sales, targets for number of participants, disaggregated by farm and firm, are also
required.
The type of Product or Service sold by the producer or firm is the first level disaggregate when reporting.
These are broken down into the following disaggregate categories to be reported in FAIS, with
illustrative examples:
Products:
• Agricultural commodities, which generally include those raw products sold by producers such as
staples, legumes, horticulture, livestock, and fish but does NOT include seeds. The specific
commodity (maize, mung beans, tomatoes, etc.) needs to be selected.
• Inputs: Seeds and planting material.
• Inputs: Other non-durable inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides.
• Inputs: Durable equipment and machinery, including land preparation equipment, irrigation
equipment, and other equipment or machinery.
• Processed products/value added products (post-harvest). The specific commodity does not
need to be selected.
• Post-harvest storage and processing equipment, including PICS bags and processing machinery.
Services:
• Business services, including financial, entrepreneurial, legal, and other enterprise/producer
strengthening services
• Information services: SMS, Radio, TV, print, etc.
• Production support services: other services that are sold to farmers, fishers, ranchers and
pastoralists, including extension services, veterinary services, rental of equipment, land
preparation, warehousing, post-harvest processing
RATIONALE: Value (in US dollars) of sales at the farm and enterprise level is a measure of the
competitiveness of farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. This measurement also helps track
access to markets and progress toward commercialization by farmers and enterprises receiving USDA
assistance. An increase in sales of agricultural products and services is directly related to increasing
agricultural productivity and expanding trade of agricultural products.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
U.S. Dollar
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Type of product or service: See definition for list of product and service types. For agricultural
commodities, report the specific commodity.
SECOND LEVEL
Type of producer/firm (firms are non-farm enterprises): Producer - smallholder, Producer – nonsmallholder, Firm – microenterprise, Firm - Small and medium enterprise, Firm- Large enterprise
or corporation.
136

Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats:
five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20
layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises employed
10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large enterprises and
corporations employed >250 individuals.
THIRD LEVEL
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as Male if all of the proprietors are male, as Female if all of the proprietors are female,
and as Mixed if the proprietors are male and female.
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the age of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as 15-29 if all of the proprietors are aged 15-29, as 30+ if all of the proprietors are aged
30+, and as Mixed if the proprietors are from both age groups.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data from assisted producers and firms may need to be collected
separately. Ideally, this indicator will be collected directly from a census of all participant farms and
firms, from recorded sales data and/or farm/firm records. A sample survey-based approach for
participant producers within the geographic area reached by the assisted market is also acceptable.
Recipients should work with assisted firms to ensure that appropriate information is provided.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance.
If a sample of participants is used to collect sales data, sample survey weighted estimates must be
extrapolated to total participant estimated values before entry into FAIS to accurately reflect total value
of reporting year sales in USD by the project’s participants. Convert local currency to USD at the
average market foreign exchange rate for the reporting period. Report exchange rate in comments in
FAIS.
Report the number of participants, both producers and private sector firms for each value chain
product or service, and for each type of producer/firm, sex, and age disaggregate. For example, to
report on the number of participants in the coffee value chain, recipients should enter the following
information for the reporting year:
Number of participants
• total number of smallholder, female, coffee-producing program participants
• total number of smallholder, male, coffee-producing program participants
• total number of smallholder, 15-29 year old, coffee-producing program participants
137

•
•

total number of smallholder, 30+ year old, coffee-producing program participants
Repeat as necessary with each relevant Type of producer/firm

Note that the volume (in metric tons) of sales of agricultural commodities will be reported in LRP
Indicator 4. There should be a correlation between the value of sales of agricultural commodities
reported for this Indicator and the volume (in metric tons) of sales reported in LRP Indicator 8.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline data reflects value of sales in the year prior to programming and should be
collected through records of assisted firms and/or a sample survey of producers via recall.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-26]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

138

LRP 1.3.2.1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
LRP INDICATOR 8: Volume of commodities sold by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator will collect the volume (as calculated in gross metric tons (MT)) of sales of
targeted commodities by farms and firms receiving USDA assistance. This includes the volume of all
sales of targeted commodity(ies), not just the volume of farm-gate sales.
The actual number reported for the indicator will be the gross volume of sales of a product (crop, animal
or fish) by project participants in the reporting period. Only count the gross volume of sales in the
reporting period attributable to USDA investment.
USDA will use the data reported for this indicator, as well as the data reported on the value of annual
sales, when reporting on the Feed the Future Initiative. Please note that the value of annual sales
indicator cannot be calculated without a value for the baseline year’s sales. If data on the total volume
of sales of the value chain commodity by participants prior to USDA activity implementation is not
available, do not leave the baseline blank or enter ‘0.’ Use the earliest reporting year sales volume
actual as the baseline year sales.
RATIONALE: Volume (in MT) of sales at the farm and enterprise level of targeted commodities is a
measure of the competitiveness of those beneficiaries receiving USDA assistance. This measurement
also helps track supply, access to markets, and progress toward commercialization by farmers and
enterprises receiving USDA assistance.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Metric Tons
Outcome
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Commodity Type (type of crop, type of animal or animal product, or type of fish – freshwater or marine).
Note: Horticultural product-specific disaggregation is not required for this indicator. The overall
“horticulture” commodity disaggregate can be used if desired.
SECOND LEVEL
Type of producer/firm (firms are non-farm enterprises): Producer - smallholder, Producer – nonsmallholder, Firm – microenterprise, Firm - Small and medium enterprise, Firm- Large enterprise
or corporation. (see definition of smallholder and firm type below)
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats:
five adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20
layers and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
Microenterprises employed <10 people in the previous 12 months, small enterprises employed
10-49 people, medium enterprises employed 50-249 individuals and large enterprises and
corporations employed >250 individuals.
THIRD LEVEL
Sex of producer or proprietor(s): Male, female, mixed
139

For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the sex of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as Male if all of the proprietors are male, as Female if all of the proprietors are female,
and as Mixed if the proprietors are male and female.
Age: 15-29, 30+, mixed
For firms, if the enterprise is a single proprietorship, the age of the proprietor should be
used for classification. If the enterprise has more than one proprietor, classify the firm
as 15-29 if all of the proprietors are aged 15-29, as 30+ if all of the proprietors are aged
30+, and as Mixed if the proprietors are from both age groups.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data from assisted producers and firms may need to be collected
separately. Ideally, this indicator will be collected directly from a census of all participant farms and
firms, from recorded sales data and/or farm/firm records. A sample survey-based approach for
participant producers within the geographic area reached by the assisted market is also acceptable.
Recipients should work with assisted firms to ensure that appropriate information is provided.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data only at the project-level, attributed to USDA assistance, i.e. where
USDA assisted the individual farmer or firm, or the market actor with which they are engaged directly,
and for those value chains/commodities/markets which USDA supports.
If a sample of participants is used to collect sales data, sample survey weighted estimates must be
extrapolated to total participant estimated values before entry into FAIS to accurately reflect total sales
by the project’s participants.
Volume (in metric tons) of agricultural commodities should be directly related to value of agricultural
commodities measured in LRP Indicator 7.
BASELINE INFO: Volume of agricultural commodities reported at baseline and for the reporting years
should be the volume that was sold and reported as sales in LRP Indicator 7.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-26]
FtF collects this information as part of the Value of annual sales indicator. In
order to capture this data in USDA’s database system, a separate indicator on
volume has been developed.

140

LRP 1.3.2.2: Increased Value Added to Post-Production Agricultural Products
LRP INDICATOR 9: Total increase in installed storage capacity (dry or cold storage) as a result of USDA
assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures total increase in functioning (refurbished and new) cubic meters of
storage capacity that have been installed through USDA programming and leveraged during the
reporting year. Installed storage capacity is an aggregate amount that encompasses on-farm and offfarm storage, dry goods and cold chain storage. Both newly installed and refurbished storage should be
counted here.
RATIONALE: Post harvest losses of foodstuffs and other agricultural products can account for a
significant proportion of overall commodity/product disappearance (waste) in developing countries. A
reduction in post-harvest losses through greater storage capacity could, therefore, substantially increase
both food and income available to rural households and increase food availability to urban areas, as
well.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Cubic Meters
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of storage:
• Dry
• Cold
Type of installation:
• Refurbished
• New
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected through a survey of farmers about new storage
facilities, direct observation of storage units added to target farms (calculate total volume of additional
storage capacity across all farms), project records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Collect data on and off-farm, counting only storage added/refurbished that can
be accessed by participants.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

141

LRP 1.4.2: Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
LRP INDICATOR 10: Number of policies, regulations, or administrative procedures in each of the
following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Number of enabling environment policies/regulations/administrative procedures in the
areas of agricultural resource, food, market standards & regulation, public investment, education,
nutrition, natural resource or water management and climate change adaptation/mitigation as it related
to agriculture that:
Stage 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis (review of existing
policy/regulation/administrative procedure and/or proposal of new policy/regulations/administrative
procedures
Stage 2: Underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second stage includes public
debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative procedure
Stage 3: Underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were presented for
legislation/decree to improve the policy environment for education)
Stage 4: Underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process [official approval (legislation/decree)
of new or revised policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority]
Stage 5: Completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised
policy/regulation/administrative procedure by relevant authority)
Other: Or were otherwise shaped by the recipient’s direct involvement.
This indicator is disaggregated by two types of policies/ regulation/ administrative procedures:
educational, and child health and nutrition. To be counted under education, actions must have, as their
ultimate purpose, improving equitable access to or the quality of education services. Child health may
include government health facilities, established procedures, materials, public information, or training.
Nutrition may include public sector investment allocated to nutrition, nutritional content of agricultural
products as provided to consumers, nutritional products, nutrition service delivery, provision of
deworming medication, school-based WASH, etc.
Policies, regulations or administrative procedures that focus on school feeding should be captured as
educational policies, regardless of which local ministry or agency is involved. Child health and nutrition
actions besides those which focus on school feeding should be captured as child health and nutrition
policies.
Count the highest stage completed during the reporting year.
RATIONALE: The indicator measures the number of policies/regulations/administrative procedures in
the various stages of progress towards an enhanced enabling environment for education and child
health and nutrition. It includes the development, implementation, and enforcement of policies and
regulations that support the achievement of one or more results in the MGD framework focused on
improving literacy of school-age children, or focused on increasing use of health, nutrition and dietary
practices.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR
DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF
Number: Policies,
LEVEL:
Because this indicator tracks REPORTING:
regulations, and/or
Stages 1 & 2:
individual policies through
Annually covering the
administrative
Output
the disaggregated stages, one period: October 1142

procedures and
supplementary
narrative

Stages 3, 4 & 5:
Outcome

should see the disaggregate
for each stage change over
time in certain ways. One
should expect the value of
disaggregates measuring the
earlier stages to decline and
the disaggregates measuring
later stages of progress to
increase as the enabling
environment is strengthened
(i.e. move from analysis to
adoption and
implementation of reforms)

September 30

DISAGGREGATION:
Type of policy:
• Educational
• Child Health and Nutrition
Stage: Disaggregates will be shown by stages (1-5) and 6 as noted above.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data collected at the project-level, through project records of activities
and capacity building carried out by the project, observation, and analysis of the host government legal
status of the various policies being addressed. Policies, legislation, and regulations should be submitted
to USDA and attached in project reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Only count policies specifically addressed and supported with USDA assistance.
Enter the name of the policy/regulation/administrative procedure and its stage in order to track
movement through the stages. Count the highest stage completed during the reporting year.
This indicator tracks the policy, regulation, or administrative procedure. Multiple project participants
working in the same country or region (with regard to regional policies) may report the same policy,
regulation, or administrative procedure as long as the program participant participated in the process
and provided assistance to the development, drafting, or formation of the law or policy.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
None

143

LRP 1.4.3: Improved Capacity of Relevant Organizations
LRP INDICATOR 11: Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity
or food security training as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted
through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills
should be counted as received training, through formal or informal means.
There is no pre-defined minimum or maximum length of time for the training; what is key is that the
training reflects a planned, structured curriculum designed to strengthen capacities, and there is a
reasonable expectation that the training recipient will acquire new knowledge or skills that s/he could
translate into action. Count an individual only once, regardless of the number of trainings received
during the reporting year and whether the trainings covered different topics. Do not count sensitization
meetings or one-off information meetings. Short-term includes all non-degree seeking training.
Individuals include agricultural producers, ranchers, fisheries, and other primary sector producers who
receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to
markets, etc. It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in
application of new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc., and extension
specialists, researchers, inspectors, government employees, policy makers, and others who are engaged
in the food, feed and fiber system, and natural resources management.
In-country and offshore training are included. Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension
methods as well as technical assistance activities.
RATIONALE: Enhanced human capacity for increased agriculture productivity, improved food security,
policy formulation and/or implementation, is key to transformational development.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the periods:
October 1-March 31 and April 1September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male/Female
Duration:
• New = this reporting period is the first period the person applied the new technology or
technique
• Continuing = the person first applied the new technology or technique in the previous period
and continues to apply it
Type of individual:
• Producers (farmers, fishers, pastoralists, ranchers, etc.)
• People in firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers)
• People in government (e.g. extension workers, policymakers)
• People in civil society (e.g. NGOs, CBOs, research and academic organizations)
o Note: While private sector firms are considered part of civil society more broadly, only
count them under the Private Sector Firms and not the Civil Society disaggregate to
avoid double counting.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
144

HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from program participant training records,
reports, or surveys. Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Count only those individuals targeted by USDA programs.
This indicator is a comprehensive indicator that includes all USDA supported training.
This indicator is to measure individuals receiving training, for which the outcome, individuals applying
new practices should be reported under LRP Indicator 12 Number of individuals in the agriculture system
who have applied improved management practices or technologies with USDA assistance.
Individuals should not be double counted in a given fiscal year. For example, if one individual
participates in multiple project-sponsored training courses in a given fiscal year, they should only be
counted one time in that fiscal year. Individuals participating in project-sponsored training courses in
multiple fiscal years may be counted once in each fiscal year, but only once in the life-of-project total.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

145

LRP 1.4.3: Improved Capacity of Relevant Organizations
LRP INDICATOR 12: Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance
DEFINITION: This indicator measures the total number of agriculture system actors participating in
USDA-funded activities who have applied improved management practices and/or technologies
promoted by USDA anywhere within the food and agriculture system during the reporting year. These
individuals can include:
•

•
•
•

Farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and nonfood crops, livestock
and livestock products, fish and other fisheries/aquaculture products, agro-forestry products,
and natural resource-based products, including non-timber forest products such as fruits,
seeds, and resins;
Individuals in the private sector, such as entrepreneurs, input suppliers, traders, processors,
manufacturers, distributors, service providers, and wholesalers and retailers;
Individuals in government, such as policy makers, extension workers and natural resource
managers;
Individuals in civil society, such as researchers or academics and non-governmental and
community organization staff.

•
•

•

•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•

Natural resource or ecosystem management: e.g. terracing, rock lines; fire breaks; biodiversity
conservation; strengthening of ecosystem services, including stream bank management or
restoration or re/afforestation; woodlot management.
Pest and disease management: e.g. Integrated Pest Management; improved fungicides;
appropriate application of fungicides; improved and environmentally sustainable use of cultural,
physical, biological, and chemical insecticides and pesticides; crop rotation; aflatoxin prevention
and control.
Soil-related fertility and conservation: e.g. Integrated Soil Fertility Management; soil
management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels, such as soil
amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiency (e.g. soil organic matter, mulching); improved
fertilizer; improved fertilizer use practices; inoculant; erosion control.
Irrigation: e.g. drip, surface, and sprinkler irrigation; irrigation schemes.
Agriculture water management - non-irrigation-based: e.g. water harvesting; sustainable water
use practices; practices that improve water quality.
Climate mitigation: technologies selected because they minimize emission intensities relative to
other alternatives (while preventing leakage of emissions elsewhere). Examples include low- or
no-till practices; restoration of organic soils and degraded lands; efficient nitrogen fertilizer use;
practices that promote methane reduction; agroforestry; introduction/expansion of perennials;
practices that promote greater resource use efficiency (e.g. drip irrigation, upgrades of
agriculture infrastructure and supply chains).
Climate adaptation/climate risk management: technologies promoted with the explicit objective
of reducing risk and minimizing the severity of the impacts of climate change. Examples include
drought and flood resistant varieties; short-duration varieties; adjustment of sowing time;
agricultural/climate forecasting; early warning systems; diversification, use of perennial
varieties; agroforestry; risk insurance.
Marketing and distribution: e.g. contract farming technologies and practices; improved input
purchase technologies and practices; improved commodity sale technologies and practices;
improved market information system technologies and practices.
Post-harvest handling and storage: e.g. improved transportation; decay and insect control;
temperature and humidity control; improved quality control technologies and practices; sorting
and grading, sanitary handling practices.
Value-added processing: e.g. improved packaging practices and materials including
biodegradable packaging; food and chemical safety technologies and practices; improved
preservation technologies and practices.
Other: e.g. improved mechanical and physical land preparation; non-market- and non-climaterelated information technology; improved record keeping; improved budgeting and financial
management; Improved capacity to repair agricultural equipment; improved quality of
agricultural products or technology.

Number: Individuals

Outcome

Higher is better

Annually covering the period:
October 1 – September 30

DISAGGREGATION:
FIRST LEVEL
Value chain actor type:
• Smallholder producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food and
nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural
resource-based products)
• Non-smallholder producers (e.g. farmers, ranchers, and other primary sector producers of food
and nonfood crops, livestock products, wild fisheries, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and natural
resource-based products)
• People in government (e.g. policy makers, extension workers)
• People in private sector firms (e.g. processors, service providers, manufacturers)
• People in civil society (e.g. staff and volunteers from non-governmental organizations,
community-based organizations, research and academic organizations)
• Others
Note: Only count producers under the "Producers" disaggregate and not the "Private Sector Firms"
disaggregate to avoid double-counting. While private sector firms are considered part of civil society
more broadly, only count them under the "Private Sector Firms" disaggregate and not the "Civil
Society" disaggregate to avoid double-counting.
Smallholder Definition: While country-specific definitions may vary, use the Feed the Future
definition of a smallholder producer, which is one who holds 5 hectares or less of arable land or
equivalent units of livestock, i.e. cattle: 10 beef cows; dairy: two milking cows; sheep and goats: five
adult ewes/does; camel meat and milk: five camel cows; pigs: two adult sows; chickens: 20 layers
and 50 broilers. The farmer does not have to own the land or livestock.
SECOND LEVEL
Sex: Male, Female
Age: 15-29, 30+
Management practice or technology type: Crop genetics, Cultural practices, Livestock
management, Wild-caught fisheries management, Aquaculture management, Natural resource
or ecosystem management, Pest and disease management, Soil-related fertility and
conservation, Irrigation, Agriculture water management-non-irrigation based, Climate
mitigation, Climate adaptation/climate risk management, Marketing and distribution, Postharvest handling and storage, Value-added processing, Other
Commodity:
Type of crop, type of animal or animal product, type of fish – freshwater or marine, or
“Disaggregate not applicable”.
Note: Horticultural product-specific disaggregation is not required for this indicator. The overall
“horticulture” commodity disaggregate can be used if desired.
Activities promoting sustainable intensification or those where multiple commodities are
148

involved (e.g. transportation), where counting participants by commodity is complicated and/or
not meaningful are not required to disaggregate participants by commodity, and should use the
"Disaggregate not applicable" category under the Commodity disaggregate.
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected via sample survey of participants, census of
private sector/government participants, project or association records, farm records,
company/organization records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: All significant improvements to existing techniques or technologies should be
counted. In a case where, for example, an individual applies more than one innovation as a result of
USDA assistance, count the individual once in the applicable Value chain actor type, Sex, and Age
disaggregate categories. If more than one participant in a household is applying improved technologies,
count all the adult participants. Individuals should only be counted once per reporting year under the
Value chain actor type, Sex, and Age disaggregate categories.
Since it is common for USDA-funded activities to promote more than one improved technology or
management practice to producers and other individuals, this indicator allows the tracking of the total
number of participants that apply any improved management practice or technology during the
reporting year and the tracking of the total number of participants that apply practices or technologies
in specific management practice and technology type categories.
•
•

•

This indicator counts individuals who applied improved management practices and technologies learned
through training provided through USDA assistance. Therefore, there should be a clear link between
LRP Indicator 12, Number of individuals in the agriculture system who have applied improved
management practices or technologies with USDA assistance and LRP Indicator 11, Number of
individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is the number of participant producers and other actors applying improved
management practices or technologies promoted by the activity at the start of the activity.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
149

to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
Yes [EG.3.2-24]
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futureindicator-handbook).

150

LRP 1.4.3: Improved Capacity of Relevant Organizations
LRP 1.4.1: Improved Capacity of Government Institutions
LRP INDICATOR 13: Number of people trained in disaster preparedness as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: Disaster preparedness includes: risk identification, analysis, prioritization, and reduction
activities; the design and implementation of regional, national, local, or community level hazard reduction
policies and plans; early warning systems, as appropriate; and identification of roles and responsibilities in
preventing, responding to, and recovering from disasters and subsequent food crises.
Training refers to new training or retraining of individuals and assumes that training is conducted according
to national or international standards, when these exist. Trainings must have specific learning objectives, a
course outline or curriculum, and expected knowledge, skills and/or competencies to be gained by
participants. Only participants who complete a full training course should be counted. If a training course
covers more than one topic, individuals should only be counted once for that training course. If a training
course is conducted in more than one session/training event, only individuals who complete the full course
should be counted; do not sum the participants for each training event. If individuals are retrained within
the reporting period, having received training prior to the project or reporting period, they should be
included in the count. Do not count sensitization meetings or one-off information meetings.
Individuals include agricultural producers, processers, national or local government employees, policy
makers, researchers, school administrators, teachers, other school workers, community leaders, parents,
health professionals, students, NGO staff, and others who are engaged in the food, nutrition, education,
emergency response, and natural resources management.
In-country and offshore training are included. Delivery mechanisms can include a variety of extension
methods as well as technical assistance activities.
Disaster means an event or a series of events that creates a need for emergency food assistance by
threatening or resulting in significantly decreased availability of, or access to, food or the erosion of the
ability of populations to meet food needs. Disasters include, but are not limited to, natural events such as
floods, earthquakes, and drought; crop failure; disease; civil strife and war; and economic turmoil.
Disasters can be characterized as slow or rapid-onset. The situation caused by a disaster is a “food crisis”.
Emergency response means any activity that is designed to meet the urgent food and nutritional needs of
those affected by acute or transitory food insecurity as a result of a disaster.
RATIONALE: Enhanced human capacity for planning for and responding to disasters and food crises, is
expected to lead to improved national and food security, increased efficiency and effectiveness of disaster
preparedness and emergency response, program and policy formulation and/or implementation, and is
key to transformational development.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Individuals Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1-March 31
and April 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Sex: Male/Female
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
151

HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from recipient training records, reports, or surveys.
Recipients should keep detailed training lists for all training sessions.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: This indicator is required only if the project is designed to provide an
emergency response to food crises and disasters.
Count only those individuals targeted by USDA programs.
Individuals should not be double counted in a given fiscal year. For example, if one individual participates
in multiple project-sponsored training courses in a given fiscal year, they should only be counted one time
in that fiscal year. Individuals participating in project-sponsored training courses in multiple fiscal years
may be counted once in each fiscal year.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM to
allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASUREMENT NOTES:
No
This is also a Foreign Assistance indicator HA.2.1-1 (see:
http://www.state.gov/f/indicators/)

152

LRP 1.4.4: Increased Leverage of Private-Sector Resources
LRP INDICATOR 14: Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The number of public-private partnerships in agriculture or nutrition formed during the
reporting year due to USDA intervention (i.e. agricultural or nutrition activity, as described below). Private
partnerships can be long or short in duration (length is not a criteria for measurement). Partnerships with
multiple partners should only be counted once. A public-private alliance (partnership) is considered
formed when there is a clear agreement, usually written, to work together to achieve a common
objective. There must be either a cash or in-kind significant contribution to the effort by both the public
and private entity. A private entity can be a for-profit entity, an NGO using private funds, a private
company, a community group, or a state-owned enterprise which seeks to make a profit (even if
unsuccessfully). A public entity can be a donor-funded program participant, a national or sub-national
government, or state-owned enterprises which are non-profit.
A project may form more than one partnership with the same entity, but this is likely to be rare. In
counting partnerships, we are not counting transactions with a partner entity; we are counting the
number of partnerships formed during the reporting year. Public-private partnerships counted should be
only those formed during the current reporting year. Any partnership that was formed in a previous year
should not be included.
An agricultural activity is any activity related to the supply of agricultural inputs, production methods,
agricultural processing or transportation. A nutritional activity includes any activity focused on attempting
to improve the nutritional content of agricultural products as provided to consumers, develop improved
nutritional products, increase support for nutrition service delivery, etc.
Formal partnerships between schools and producers, cooperatives or other private sector entities for the
purpose of sustainably supporting school meals programs should be counted as a nutrition focused
partnership.
RATIONALE: The assumption of this indicator is that if more partnerships are formed it is likely that there
will be more investment in agriculture or nutrition-related activities, which ultimately contributes to
agriculture sector growth. The improvement in growth will increase the incomes of all, but because the
focus of project work is on the vulnerable (women, children and the poor) there will also be a reduction in
poverty.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number:
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the periods:
Partnerships
October 1 – March 31 and April 1
– September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of partnership (refer to the primary focus of the partnership if applicable):
• Agricultural production
• Agricultural post-harvest transformation
• Nutrition
• Multi-focus (use this if there are several components of the above sectors in the partnership)
• Other (do not use this for multi-focus partnerships)
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.

153

HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected at the project-level, through project records of
activities and capacity building carried out by the project, observation and analysis of the host
government legal status of the various policies being addressed. Policies, legislation, regulations should
be submitted to USDA and attached in project reports.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Only count partnerships that are attributable to USDA investment.
Each partnership’s formation should only ever be reported once in order to add the total number of
partnerships across years.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM to
allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No
None

154

LRP 1.4.4: Increased Leverage of Private-Sector Resources
LRP 1.3.2.3: Increased Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural Products
LRP INDICATOR 15: Value of new USG commitments, and new public and private sector investments
leveraged by USDA to support food security and nutrition
DEFINITION: The term “investments” is defined as public or private sector resources intended to
complement existing/ongoing USDA-funded activities (i.e. education or nutrition activity, as described
below), including resources provided for purposes of cost-share or matching. While the majority of such
resources will be monetary in nature, non-monetary resources (e.g. in-kind contributions, labor, etc.)
should be expressed in their respective dollar values. Data should be collected for four categories: “host
government,” “other public sector,” “private sector”, and “new USG commitments”.
“Host Government” includes any investments from the national, regional, or local governments.
“Other public sector” includes any investments provided by the Program Participant itself, or other
Private Voluntary Organizations.
“Private sector” includes any investments from a private actor, including for-profit organizations, private
philanthropic organizations, or individuals.
“New USG commitments” refers to funds in the form of a direct loan, part of a grant, or other award
designed to leverage additional funds from private sector organizations. Subsidies paid to structure a
guarantee or insurance product do not count as new USG commitments.
“Leveraged as a result of USDA assistance” indicates that the investment was directly encouraged or
facilitated by the activities funded or resources provided by USDA.
“Investments” means the level of resources provided during each reporting year.
For multi-year activities, commitments are recorded at the outset of the activity, if made prior to the
start of the activity, or during the year when they are made, if commitments are received during
implementation of an activity.
A nutritional activity includes any activity focused on improving the nutritional content of agricultural
products provided to consumers, developing improved nutritional products, increasing support for
nutrition service delivery, etc.
An educational activity includes any activity focused on improving educational support to improve the
quality of literacy or any other lower level result in the MGD results framework such as improving access
to school supplies and materials, improved school infrastructure, increased access to food, and
improved literacy instructional materials.
This indicator is not directly paired with the preceding indicator (LRP Indicator 14) on public-private
partnerships. In other words, this indicator does not track only investments that may have been
leveraged via those partnerships, but rather is separate and broader in tracking the value of any public
or private sector investments leveraged (encouraged or facilitated) by the activities or resources
provided by USDA.
RATIONALE: The assumption of this indicator is that the higher the value of investment, particularly by
the host government, the greater the chances for long-term sustainability of education and nutrition155

related activities beyond USDA’s initial commitment. Private sector investment is critical because it
indicates that the investment is perceived by private agents to provide a positive financial return and
therefore is likely to lead to sustainable improvements. All of these investments are key to achieving
long-term impact in project areas by increasing host country capacity and ownership of programs.
Coordinated and complementary investments from the host government and other public and private
sector donors will help achieve improved literacy and increased use of health and dietary practices,
which then contribute to the key objective of improving the literacy of school age children and
sustaining the benefits made during project implementation to literacy, attendance, and enrollment by
graduating the project to full host-country ownership.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE:
FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
U.S. Dollar
Output
Higher is better
Annually covering the period:
October 1-September 30
DISAGGREGATION:
Type of investment amount:
• Host Government amount
• Other Public sector amount
• Private sector amount
• New USG Commitment amount
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected by partnership records/agreements.
MEASUREMENT NOTES: Convert local currency to U.S. dollars at the average market foreign exchange
rate for the reporting period. Report exchange rate in indicator narrative in FAIS.
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR:
DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
Yes, partially;
For more guidance on the Feed the Future indicator, please refer to the Feed the
combines EG.3.1-14 Future Indicator Handbook (https://www.agrilinks.org/post/feed-futurewith USDA-specific
indicator-handbook).
disaggregates

156

LRP SO1: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement
LRP INDICATOR 16: Number of schools reached as a result of USDA assistance
DEFINITION: The indicator tracks the number of schools reached during the reporting period by any
project activity. While this will commonly be schools reached with school feeding, it will also count
schools reached with any other activity (even absent feeding), such as teacher training or other capacitybuilding activities, facilities improvements, PTA strengthening, etc.
RATIONALE: The school is the hub of many program activities and having a simple school count is useful
in reflecting the breadth of the program.
INDICATOR CHARACTERISTICS
UNIT OF MEASURE: INDICATOR LEVEL: DIRECTION OF CHANGE: FREQUENCY OF REPORTING:
Number: Schools
Output
Higher is better
Biannually covering the
periods: October 1 – March 31
and April 1 – September 30
DISAGGREGATION: None
DATA SOURCE:
WHO COLLECTS DATA FOR THIS INDICATOR: Data will be collected by Recipients.
HOW SHOULD IT BE COLLECTED: Data will be collected from recipient records.
MEASUREMENT NOTES:
BASELINE INFO: Baseline is zero.
DATA ENTRY IN FAIS:
The indicator title must be entered into the relevant performance reporting section of FAIS VERBATIM
to allow for the information to be collected correctly.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE FEED THE FUTURE (FtF) INITIATIVE
FtF INDICATOR: DEFINITIONAL AND MEASURMENT NOTES:
No

157

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Indicators and Definitions
Subject	Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and Development
Author	Morefield, Eleanor - FAS
File Modified	2020-02-27
File Created	2019-03-11