UNCLASSIFIED
APPR: TF ( )
DRAFT: OC ( )
CLEAR: RC ( )
UNCLASSIFIED CLEAR: ( )
CLEAR: ( )
AID/PPC:OCARDUNER/PHENDERSON-OKEEFE:EP CLEAR: ( )
12/21/98 2-0581/2-4976
AID/AA/PPC:TFOX CLEAR: ( )
AID/DAA/PPC:DDIJKERMAN(INFO)
AID/PPC/CDIE:GBRITAN(INFO)
AID/M/B:JPAINTER(DRAFT)
AID/AFR:JSMITH(DRAFT)
AID/ANE:JBRESLAR(DRAFT)
AID/AA/LAC:MSCHNEIDER(DRAFT)
AID/ENI:PMATHESON(DRAFT)
AID/G:BTURNER(DRAFT)+
PRIORITY AWIDE, CIS C PRIORITY, RIGA PRIORITY, SARAJEVO PRIORITY, BUJUMBURA PRIORITY,
ASMARA PRIORITY, DAR ES SALAAM PRIORITY,+
ADM AID FROM AA/PPC, TOM FOX TO MISSION DIRECTORS AND
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS:
SUBJECT: FY 2001 RESULTS REVIEW AND RESOURCE REQUEST (R4)
USAID/W OFFICE DIRECTORS
I. INTRODUCTION
THIS CABLE PROVIDES R4 GUIDANCE FOR THE FY 2001 R4 CYCLE. THE GUIDANCE REFLECTS SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES TO THE AGENCY'S MANAGEMENT FOR RESULTS SYSTEM AS PROPOSED BY AN
INTER-BUREAU WORKING GROUP AND ENDORSED AT THE WORLDWIDE MISSION DIRECTORS
CONFERENCE. THE OBJECTIVE IS TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERN THAT PERFORMANCE
REPORTING HAS BECOME TOO COSTLY IN TERMS OF LIMITED STAFF AND DOLLAR RESOURCES
AND IS NOT WELL MATCHED TO ACTUAL BUDGET DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES.
THESE CHANGES HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE HILL AND OMB. PPC IS WORKING
INTENSIVELY WITH THESE STAKEHOLDERS TO REACH AGREEMENT ON ADEQUATE AND
COST-EFFECTIVE STANDARDS FOR PERFORMANCE REPORTING WHICH MEETS GPRA REQUIREMENTS
AND INTERNAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT NEEDS. PPC IS ALSO WORKING UNCLASSIFIED WITH
STATE TO IMPROVE THE MISSION PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS PLANS (MPP) PROCESS AND ITS
ALIGNMENT WITH USAID PLANNING PROCESSES. RELATED AREAS OF THE
MANAGEMENT-FOR-RESULTS SYSTEM WILL BE UNDER REVIEW IN COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS,
INCLUDING STRATEGIC PLANNING GUIDANCE, NON-PRESENCE COUNTRY PROGRAMMING AND
REPORTING, AND CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION.
THE FOLLOWING SECTION-BY-SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS IS PROVIDED TO FACILITATE
USE OF THE CABLE:
SECTION:
I. -- INTRODUCTION
II. -- GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A. -- BACKGROUND AND ACTION REQUEST
B. -- BUDGET OUTLOOK
C. -- MPP LINKAGE
D. -- CHANGES TO THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
E. -- WHO SHOULD SUBMIT
F. -- FORMATTING INSTRUCTIONS
G. -- SUBMISSION SCHEDULE & CONTACT POINTS
H. -- SUPPLEMENTAL REFERENCES
III. -- R4 OUTLINE AND DRAFTING INSTRUCTIONS
A. -- COVER MEMO
B. -- R4 PART I: OVERVIEW
C. -- R4 PART II: RESULTS REVIEW
D. -- R4 PART III (OLD): STATUS OF THE MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT (NOW CONTAINED IN COVER MEMO)
E. -- R4 PART III (NEW): RESOURCE REQUEST
F. -- WORKFORCE AND OE
G. -- SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ANNEXES
IV. -- SPECIAL REPORTING SITUATIONS
A. -- G BUREAU FIELD SUPPORT
B. -- BHR PROGRAMMED RESOURCES
C. -- CLOSEOUT AND GRADUATION
D. -- NON-PRESENCE COUNTRIES
V. -- CHANGES IN WASHINGTON R4 REVIEW PROCESS
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
A. BACKGROUND AND ACTION REQUEST
R4S HAVE BEEN USED TO SATISFY INFORMATION NEEDS AT SEVERAL LEVELS: BY
MISSIONS TO DETERMINE IF PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES NEED ADJUSTMENT TO MAXIMIZE
IMPACT; BY REGIONAL BUREAUS TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES ACROSS COUNTRIES TO MEET
DEVELOPMENT AND FOREIGN POLICY GOALS; AND BY CENTRAL BUREAUS FOR EXTERNAL AGENCY
REPORTING AND BUDGET PREPARATION.
AFTER ANALYZING CURRENT PRACTICE, THE R4 WORKING GROUP, CONVOKED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR, REACHED SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS: (1) R4S GENERALLY PROVIDE MISSION
MANAGEMENT WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MANAGE FOR RESULTS AND IMPLEMENT
APPROPRIATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING; (2) R4S PROVIDE REGIONAL BUREAUS WITH
MORE THAN ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR ACTUAL BUREAU MANAGEMENT AND BUDGETING NEEDS;
AND (3) R4S WERE SOMEWHAT CUMBERSOME IN TRANSMITTING INFORMATION FOR AGENCY-WIDE
PLANNING AND REPORTING PURPOSES. THE VIEW THAT R4S SHOULD BE THE SOLE OR MAIN
BASIS FOR BUDGET DECISIONS ENCOURAGED BUREAUS TO REQUEST, AND MISSIONS TO
PROVIDE, MORE INFORMATION THAN COULD EFFECTIVELY BE USED. WASHINGTON REVIEWS
BECAME TOO LABOR INTENSIVE AND EXCESSIVELY FOCUSED ON DETAILED NUMERIC SCORING
AND RANKING. BY CONTRAST, INSUFFICIENT EFFORT WAS GIVEN TO SYNTHESIZING REGIONAL
AND GLOBAL TRENDS AND AGENCY-WIDE IMPACT.
THE COMPLETE R4 WORKING GROUP REPORT CAN BE OBTAINED ON THE AGENCY'S INTERNAL
AND EXTERNAL WEBSITES WITH RELATED MISSION DIRECTORS CONFERENCE MATERIALS.
PPC/CDIE TIPS NO. 12, AN ANNEX TO THE REPORT, PROVIDES UPDATED GUIDANCE ON
PERFORMANCE MONITORING STANDARDS. THE CHANGES DESCRIBED BELOW SHOULD NOT BE
MISCONSTRUED AS A SHIFT AWAY FROM RESULTS MANAGEMENT. RATHER, IT IS AN EFFORT TO
BETTER ALIGN OUR SYSTEMS TO THE TYPES OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION DECISIONS WHICH ARE
POSSIBLE, GIVEN NON-PERFORMANCE FACTORS THAT MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AND THE
LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING METHODOLOGIES FOR CROSS-COUNTRY AND CROSS-GOAL
PERFORMANCE COMPARISONS. DESPITE SUCH DIFFICULTIES, WE REMAIN COMMITTED TO
APPLYING RESULTS- BASED MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AT ALL POSSIBLE POINTS.
R4S WILL CONTINUE TO BE REQUIRED FOR EVERY OPERATING UNIT EVERY YEAR. MAJOR
CHANGES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY INCLUDE:
- ELIMINATING PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT ARE NOT USEFUL FOR
MANAGEMENT-FOR-RESULTS DECISION-MAKING;
- REDUCING THE PRESCRIBED LENGTH OF R4 DOCUMENTS, WHILE ALLOWING LIMITED USE
OF ANNEXES TO MEET SPECIAL NEEDS;
- REDUCING THE FREQUENCY OF FORMAL TRADITIONAL USAID/WASHINGTON PROGRAM
REVIEWS TO ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS FOR MOST PROGRAMS, WHILE ALLOWING BUREAUS TO
INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF SELECTED COUNTRY REVIEWS WHEN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WARRANT;
- ELIMINATING COMPARISON RANK-ORDERING OF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES (SO'S) ACROSS
A REGION OR GOAL AREA AS WELL AS RELATIVE PRIORITY RANKINGS OF SO'S FOR A GIVEN
COUNTRY PROGRAM;
- INTRODUCING A COVER MEMO FOR MISSION MANAGEMENT TO CANDIDLY HIGHLIGHT
SPECIFIC ISSUES REQUIRING USAID/W ACTION;
- ISSUING MANAGEMENT CONTRACT CABLES ONLY IN YEARS WHEN SPECIFIC CHANGES TO
THE CONTRACT ARE MADE. ROUTINE USE OF CABLES FOLLOWING EVERY R4 SUBMISSION WOULD
BE DROPPED, AND
- STRIVING TO PROMOTE BETTER TEAMWORK BETWEEN WASHINGTON AND THE FIELD
FOCUSED ON ACHIEVING RESULTS AND IMPROVING THE FLOW OF COMMUNICATION.
OPERATING UNITS AND THEIR BUREAUS ARE REQUESTED TO INITIATE THE FOLLOWING
ACTIONS TO HELP IMPLEMENT THE CHANGES LISTED ABOVE:
1. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN REVISIONS: REVIEW YOUR SO PERFORMANCE
MONITORING PLANS AND RELATED SECTIONS OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS, AND ELIMINATE
PERFORMANCE MEASURES WHICH ARE NOT BEING USED FOR RESULTS MANAGEMENT. THE
OBJECTIVE IS TO REDUCE THE COST AND BURDEN OF PERFORMANCE REPORTING BY
ELIMINATING INDICATORS THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY USEFUL IN ASSESSING PROGRESS IN
MEETING OBJECTIVES, MAKING IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, OR MEETING
SPECIFIC AGENCY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. IF A GRANTEE ANSWERS TO MULTIPLE
OPERATING UNITS (E.G., THE MISSION AND G OR BHR), THOSE OPERATING UNITS SHOULD
WORK TOGETHER WITH THE RESPONSIBLE GRANTS OFFICER TO INSURE THAT THE GRANTEE IS
NOT BURDENED WITH EXCESSIVE AND NON-OVERLAPPING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS.
OPERATING UNITS CAN BEGIN THE PROCESS OF WEEDING-OUT THEIR PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
WHILE PREPARING THIS R4. THIS EFFORT SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN A YEAR, IF
POSSIBLE BY THE DUE DATE OF THE FY 2002 R4. SEE II.D. BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL
GUIDANCE ON CHANGING INDICATORS.
2. REVIEW SCHEDULE: BUREAUS WILL ADVISE OPERATING UNITS WHICH PROGRAMS WILL
BE SCHEDULED FOR FORMAL PROGRAM WEEK REVIEWS IN FY 99 AND THE SCHEDULE FOR THOSE
REVIEWS. THE INTENT IS TO HOLD SUCH REVIEWS ONLY WHEN NEEDED BUT NOT LESS THAN
ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS. R4S SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND APRIL 1
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY YOUR HOME BUREAU (SEE G BELOW). INFORMATION ABOUT
PROGRAM PROGRESS SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE SHARED BETWEEN THE FIELD AND WASHINGTON
THROUGH E-MAILS, DESK OFFICERS, EVALUATIONS, PERIODIC CONSULTATIONS WITH MISSION
STAFF AS THEY TRANSIT WASHINGTON, FIELD TRAVEL BY WASHINGTON STAFF, AND SPECIAL
CONSULTATIONS WITH MISSION MANAGEMENT AS DETERMINED BY THE MISSION AND REGIONAL
BUREAU.
SECTION V BELOW PROVIDES SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR R4 DRAFTERS ON CHANGES TO
THE WASHINGTON R4 REVIEW PROCESS. OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO MISSIONS AND SO TEAMS
WILL BE THE ELIMINATION OF POINT SCORING OF INDIVIDUAL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND
RELATED COMPARISON-RANKINGS EXERCISES.
B. BUDGET OUTLOOK
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING IS IN VERY SHORT SUPPLY RELATIVE TO LEGITIMATE PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE FOR DA FUNDS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH. WE
EXPECT CONTINUING FUNDING PRIORITY FOR CHILD SURVIVAL, AIDS, INFECTIOUS DISEASES,
BASIC EDUCATION, AND, IN THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AREA, MICROENTERPRISE AND
AGRICULTURE. WE ALSO EXPECT MORE LIMITED AND MORE TARGETED ASSISTANCE FOR
NON-PRESENCE COUNTRIES. THESE PRIORITIES NOTWITHSTANDING, THE ADMINISTRATION
INTENDS TO CONTINUE SUPPORT FOR POPULATION, ENVIRONMENT AND DEMOCRACY. FOR
PLANNING PURPOSES, THE AGENCY IS PROJECTING THE OVERALL COMBINED LEVEL OF DA AND
CS/D FUNDING TO REMAIN AT ABOUT CURRENTLY APPROPRIATED LEVELS OVER THE NEXT
SEVERAL YEARS. WE ANTICIPATE LEVELS FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE NIS WILL DECLINE
GRADUALLY. MONEY FOR THE MIDDLE-EAST PEACE PROCESS COUNTRIES SHOULD STAY FAIRLY
CONSTANT OVERALL WITH SOME SHIFTING OF LEVELS AMONG COUNTRIES. FOOD AND DISASTER
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS WILL CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED AT RECENT LEVELS. PL 480 TITLE
III, HOWEVER, WILL BE REDUCED FURTHER IF NOT ELIMINATED.
C. MISSION PERFORMANCE PLAN (MPP) LINKAGE
USAID AND STATE ARE COORDINATING CLOSELY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MPP'S
AND THE R-4. THE MPP IS THE AUTHORITATIVE INTEGRATED INTERAGENCY COUNTRY
STRATEGY DOCUMENT PREPARED BY THE COUNTRY TEAM AND APPROVED BY THE CHIEF OF
MISSION. IN ADDITION TO DEFINING GOALS AND PLANNED PERFORMANCE, IT ALSO SERVES
TO REPORT ON PAST PERFORMANCE AND REQUEST RESOURCES. MPP GOALS ARE BASED ON THE
NATIONAL INTERESTS AND STRATEGIC GOALS CONTAINED IN THE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
STRATEGIC PLAN (IASP). THE IASP INCORPORATES USAID'S AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN
GOALS. NOW BEING UPDATED WITH USAID INPUT, THE CURRENT IASP DOCUMENT WILL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO ALL POSTS AND WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE
(WWW.STATE.GOV).
MPP AND R-4 PREPARATION WILL BE BETTER SYNCHRONIZED IN THIS CYCLE. STATE
ANTICIPATES ISSUING MPP GUIDANCE IN FEBRUARY WITH A MID-APRIL MPP SUBMISSION DUE
DATE. USAID MISSIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE INTEGRAL PARTICIPANTS IN PREPARING THE
MPP. USAID OFFICERS CAN LEND THEIR EXTENSIVE PLANNING AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
EXPERIENCE TO HELP PREPARE HIGHER QUALITY AND RIGOROUS MPPS. THE USAID COUNTRY
STRATEGY AND R4 COMPLEMENT THE MPP BY PROVIDING THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND
ANALYSIS OF USAID-MANAGED OBJECTIVES AND RELATED PERFORMANCE AND BUDGET PLANNING
INFORMATION. THE MPP SHOULD, THEREFORE, SIMPLY INCORPORATE USAID STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES AND RELATED RESOURCE DATA UNDER THE APPROPRIATE MPP GOAL AND NATIONAL
INTEREST. WASHINGTON AGENCIES WILL REVIEW AND APPROVE MPPS TO ENSURE AGREEMENT
ON CRITICAL NATIONAL INTERESTS AND PRIORITIES AND RELATED RESOURCE REQUESTS.
USAID WILL BE A FULL PARTICIPANT IN MPP REVIEWS FOR ALL COUNTRIES THAT RECEIVE,
OR PROPOSE RECEIVING, USAID FUNDING AND WILL CLEAR ANY MPP-RELATED FOLLOW-UP
ACTIONS THAT RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO USAID-MANAGED OBJECTIVES. STATE WILL BE
INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN PROGRAM WEEK REVIEWS OF R4S WHEN SCHEDULED.
R-4 DOCUMENTS SHOULD IDENTIFY WHICH MPP GOAL AND NATIONAL INTEREST ARE
SUPPORTED BY EACH USAID STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE, AND NOTE THAT THESE LINKAGES ARE
CONSISTENT WITH MPPS. THE MPP WILL REQUIRE THAT EACH USAID OBJECTIVE SHOULD BE
DESCRIBED UNDER ONE PRIMARY MPP GOAL (SUPPORT TO SECONDARY GOALS CAN BE
INDICATED). IN SOME CASES, SUCH AS INTEGRATED HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING
OBJECTIVES, WHICH COULD SUPPORT MORE THAN ONE IASP GOAL (E.G., HEALTH AND FAMILY
PLANNING ARE LISTED AS SEPARATE GOALS IN THE IASP), A CHOICE WILL HAVE TO BE MADE
IN DETERMINING WHICH IASP/MPP GOAL IS PRIMARY. USAID EDUCATION SO'S MAY ALSO
HAVE TO BE SOMEWHAT ARBITRARILY LINKED TO ONE PRIMARY MPP GOAL EVEN THOUGH THEY
MAY BENEFIT MORE THAN ONE.
PPC/PC IS THE PRINCIPAL CONTACT POINT WITH STATE/RPP ON MPP/R4 COORDINATION
AND WILL ASSIST IN ADDRESSING QUESTIONS THAT MAY ARISE RELATED TO GUIDANCE.
REGIONAL BUREAUS WILL HAVE THE LEAD IN COORDINATING R4 AND MPP REVIEWS WITH THEIR
STATE COUNTERPARTS.
D. CHANGES TO THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
WASHINGTON REGULARLY RECEIVES REQUESTS FROM THE FIELD
ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON WHAT TYPES OF CHANGES TO THE
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT REQUIRE WASHINGTON RATHER THAN FIELD LEVEL
APPROVAL. BUREAUS HAVE VARIED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THEIR RESPONSE
OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS. THIS HAS CREATED SOME CONCERN AMONG
MISSION STAFF AND PARTNERS WHO SEE DIFFERENT TREATMENTS FOR
APPARENTLY SIMILAR PROGRAMS. THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED TO
PROVIDE STANDARD GUIDANCE THAT SHOULD COVER MANY SITUATIONS.
VARIATIONS OR AMPLIFICATIONS OF THIS GUIDANCE, IF ANY, WILL BE
PROVIDED IN WRITING BY INDIVIDUAL BUREAUS WITH CLEARANCE FROM
PPC. PPC WILL WORK WITH BUREAUS TO SEEK A REASONABLE DEGREE OF
CONSISTENCY AND PREDICTABILITY, KEEPING IN MIND THE NEED FOR SOME
OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY.
1. CHANGES AT THE SO LEVEL: PER ADS SECTION
E201.5.16D.1, OPERATING UNITS RESPONSIBLE FOR EXECUTING STRATEGIC
PLANS HAVE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE MINOR CHANGES OR REFINEMENTS IN
AN SO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, HOWEVER, MUST BE FORMALLY APPROVED BY
THE REGIONAL AA WITH PPC, M, AND OTHER CLEARANCES. IF IN DOUBT
AS TO WHETHER A CHANGE WOULD BE CONSIDERED MINOR OR SIGNIFICANT,
OPERATING UNITS ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH THEIR REGIONAL BUREAU
OR DP OFFICE. MINOR CHANGES SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY NOTED IN THE R4
WITHOUT REQUESTING FORMAL APPROVAL. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WOULD BE
REQUESTED IN THE R4 COVER MEMO AND APPROVED BY A MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT CABLE.
2. CHANGES IN INTERMEDIATE RESULTS BELOW THE SO LEVEL:
OPERATING UNITS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE CHANGES TO A
RESULTS FRAMEWORK BELOW THE SO LEVEL. THIS GENERAL AUTHORITY MAY
HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED, HOWEVER, IN MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS THAT
APPROVED SPECIFIC STRATEGIC PLANS. EVEN IF NOT FORMALLY
RESTRICTED, IT WILL USUALLY BE PRUDENT TO CONSULT VIA EMAIL WITH
YOUR BUREAU BEFORE APPROVING CHANGES TO THE RESULTS FRAMEWORK.
ANY CHANGE SHOULD BE WELL DESCRIBED AND EXPLAINED IN THE R4
DOCUMENT. IF THE HOME BUREAU DEEMS IT A CHANGE IN THE MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT, IT WILL CONFIRM THIS BY ISSUING A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
CABLE APPROVING OR DENYING THE CHANGE. IF NO CABLE IS ISSUED,
THE OPERATING UNIT MAY CONSIDER THE CHANGE TO BE WITHIN ITS
AUTHORITY TO IMPLEMENT.
3. CHANGES TO PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: SOME CONFUSION
HAS EXISTED REGARDING THE NEED FOR WASHINGTON APPROVAL TO CHANGES
IN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. THE ADS ANTICIPATES THAT PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND FINALIZED AFTER A STRATEGIC
PLAN IS APPROVED AND, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE PART OF THE
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME MISSIONS AND
BUREAUS HAVE USED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND SPECIFIC TARGETS AS
A WAY OF PROVIDING A MORE SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF AN SO OR
INTERMEDIATE RESULT. WHEN THESE INDICATORS HAVE BEEN APPROVED
TOGETHER WITH STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, THEY
EFFECTIVELY BECOME PART OF THE CONTRACT AND BUREAUS EXPECT TO
APPROVE PROPOSED CHANGES. PER SECTION II.A. ABOVE, OPERATING
UNITS ARE URGED TO REVIEW INDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE AND ELIMINATE
THOSE THAT ARE NOT USEFUL OR COST EFFECTIVE IN RESULTS MANAGEMENT
AT THE MISSION LEVEL. OPERATING UNITS SHOULD REFER TO CDIE TIPS
NO. 7 ON PREPARING A PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
GUIDANCE. BECAUSE SOME INDICATOR CHANGES MAY BE SEEN AS
MODIFYING AN EARLIER MANAGEMENT CONTRACT, UNITS SHOULD DESCRIBE
THE CHANGES THEY ARE MAKING IN THE AREA OF PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT IN THE COVER MEMO TO THE R4. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS
BELOW). HOWEVER, NO FORMAL APPROVAL FOR THESE CHANGES IS
NECESSARY. BUREAUS WILL ASSESS MISSION PROGRESS IN MAKING SUCH
CHANGES AND ADVISE IF CONCERNS ARISE WITH RESPECT TO EXTERNAL
PERFORMANCE REPORTING OR OTHER INTERNAL MANAGEMENT NEEDS.
OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING SUCH CONCERNS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE USE OF
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTING ANNEXES AS DESCRIBED IN III.G. BELOW,
WILL BE REVIEWED WITH PPC.
E. WHO SHOULD SUBMIT
ALL OPERATING UNITS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT COMPLETE
R4S ANNUALLY UNLESS THEY DO NOT NEED PROGRAM FUNDS AND/OR
OPERATING EXPENSE FUNDS AFTER THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. IN THE
LATTER CASE, ONLY THE RESULTS REVIEW PORTION OF THE R4 MUST BE
SUBMITTED.
F. ELECTRONIC FORMAT AND PERFORMANCE DATA TABLES
THE FOLLOWING STANDARDIZED FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS ARE
AIMED AT ALLOWING MORE RAPID AND EFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION OF R4
SECTIONS TO APPROPRIATE REVIEWERS FOR VARIOUS EXTERNAL AGENCY
REPORT PREPARATION (E.G., CP, APP, APR). PLEASE SUBMIT BOTH
HARD AND ELECTRONIC COPIES OF YOUR DOCUMENT. BECAUSE OF THE Y2K
UPGRADE EFFORT, ALL UNITS SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO MICROSOFT
OFFICE 97 FORMATS (WORD AND EXCEL) BY THE TIME OF THIS
SUBMISSION. WHERE UPGRADES HAVE NOT OCCURRED, ELECTRONIC FILES
WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN (LOTUS AND WORDPERFECT). PLEASE DO NOT
COMPRESS OR ZIP FILES, AND AVOID GRAPHICS. USE ONLY THE
WORKSHEETS, MACROS OR FORMATS PROVIDED BY YOUR BUREAUS. PREPARE
NARRATIVES USING 12-POINT TIMES NEW ROMAN TYPEFACE.
R4S SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO TWO LOCATIONS: YOUR
REGIONAL OR CENTRAL BUREAU AND THE USAID DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE
CLEARINGHOUSE USING THE FOLLOWING EMAIL ADDRESS:
CDIE_DOCUMENT_SUBMISSIONS. ALL ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS SHOULD
USE A STANDARD FILE NAMING CONVENTION. THE FILES AND THE
SUGGESTED FILE NAMES ARE:
R4CNTRY - THIS FILE WILL CONTAIN THE FULL TEXT OF THE R4
--------- DOCUMENT, INCLUDING PERFORMANCE DATA TABLES AND
--------- SUPPLEMENTAL ANNEXES AND WILL NOT BE SHARED WITH
--------- PARTNERS AND THE PUBLIC. THE BOLIVIA REPORT
--------- FILE, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE NAMED R4BOLIV.
R2CNTRY - THIS FILE WILL CONTAIN ONLY THE RESULTS REVIEW
---------ÊNARRATIVE AND PERFORMANCE DATA TABLES; AS IT IS
--------- INTENDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, IT MUST NOT, REPEAT,
--------- NOT INCLUDE THE COVER MEMO, OR THE NARRATIVE
--------- PORTION OF THE RESOURCES REQUEST. IT MUST
--------- ALSO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCES TO "PRE-DECISIONAL"
--------- BUDGET INFORMATION. THIS FILE WILL BE MADE
--------- AVAILABLE ON THE EXTERNAL USAID WEB SITE.
R2CTRDAT - THIS FILE WILL CONTAIN SPREADSHEETS CONSISTING
--------- OF PRE-FORMATTED BUDGET TABLES.
ANXZZZ - FOR MISSIONS SENDING "SPECIAL INFORMATION
-------- ANNEXES" (SEE SECTION III.G), PLEASE SEND A
-------- SEPARATE FILE FOR EACH "SPECIAL INFORMATION
-------- ANNEX". WE SUGGEST USING A THREE-LETTER CODE
-------- REFERENCING THE ANNEX TOPIC IN EACH FILENAME TO
-------- FACILITATE IDENTIFICATION (SEE III.G). ANNEXES
-------- FOR NON-PRESENCE COUNTRIES SHOULD FOLLOW THE
-------- NAMING CONVENTIONS ABOVE (R4CNTRY, ETC.).
DO NOT ASSIGN AN EXTENSION TO THESE FILES, I.E.,
R2CNTRY.DOC; ALLOW THE SOFTWARE APPLICATION TO AUTOMATICALLY
ASSIGN THE EXTENSION FOR THAT SOFTWARE APPLICATION SO USAID/W
CAN IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF FILE SUBMITTED.
POLICY NOTICE NO. 19 OF OCT 19, 1998, REVISING ADS
SECTION 210.5.16E REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING WORDING ON THE COVER
PAGE OF EACH R4:
- THE ATTACHED RESULTS INFORMATION IS FROM THE FY XXXX
RESULTS REVIEW AND RESOURCE REQUEST (R4) FOR (COUNTRY OR OPU)
AND WAS ASSEMBLED AND ANALYZED BY (USAID/OPU).
- THE R4 IS A "PRE-DECISIONAL" USAID DOCUMENT AND DOES
NOT REFLECT RESULTS STEMMING FROM FORMAL USAID
REVIEWS. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE ATTACHED CAN BE OBTAINED
FROM (CONTACT PERSON AND OFFICE MAKING THE DISTRIBUTION).
- RELATED DOCUMENT INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM:
USAID DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE CLEARINGHOUSE
1611 N. KENT ST., SUITE 200
ARLINGTON, VA. 22209-2111
TELEPHONE: 703-351-4006 EXT. 106
FAX: 703-351-4039
EMAIL: DOCORDER@DEC.CDIE.ORG
INTERNET: HTTP://WWW.DEC.ORG
G. SUBMISSION SCHEDULE AND CONTACT POINTS
UNLESS OTHERWISE ADVISED BY YOUR REGIONAL BUREAU, ALL
R4S ARE TO BE SUBMITTED BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND APRIL 1, 1999.
BUREAUS WILL ADVISE OPERATING UNITS REGARDING BUREAU R4 CONTACT
POINTS. IN SOME CASES, YOUR BUREAU CONTACT MAY FORWARD
QUESTIONS TO YOUR PPC COORDINATOR (PARRIE HENDERSON-OKEEFE: AFR
AND ENI; TOM RISHOI: LAC AND G; DEBBIE PRINDLE: ANE; AND LARRY
LAIRD: BHR). QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO PPC (AND THE ANSWERS) WILL
BE POSTED ON THE PPC WEB PAGE (WWW.USAID.GOV/PPC). CASES OF
CONFLICTING OR UNCLEARED SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE SHOULD BE
REPORTED TO OLIVIER CARDUNER, PPC/PC, FOR RESOLUTION (SEE III.G.
BELOW). QUESTIONS ABOUT PERFORMANCE-INFORMED BUDGETING SHOULD
GO TO BUREAU BUDGET OFFICES, COPIED TO TEDDY WOOD-STERVINOU,
M/B/PA, AND THOSE RELATED TO WORKFORCE PLANNING TO BUREAU AMS
OFFICES, COPIED TO MARCUS RARICK, M/B/SB. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (SPIA), MPPS OR THE
USAID STRATEGIC PLAN SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO OLIVIER CARDUNER,
PPC/PC AND COPIED TO YOUR BUREAUS.
H. SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE FOR R4 PREPARATION
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON R4 PREPARATION WILL BE
MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH YOUR BUREAU CONTACT, AND THE PPC WEB PAGE
AT WWW.USAID.GOV/PPC:
1. MANAGEMENT FOR RESULTS WORKING GROUP REPORT
PRESENTED AT MISSION DIRECTORS CONFERENCE.
2. R4 GUIDANCE CABLE ISSUES RESOLUTION MEMO
3. CDIE TIPS NUMBER 12 - GUIDELINES FOR INDICATOR AND
DATA QUALITY.
4. CDIE TIPS NUMBER 7 - PREPARING A PERFORMANCE
MONITORING PLAN
5. CDIE TIPS NUMBER 5 - ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE
TARGETS
6. SAMPLES/EXAMPLES OF THE REVISED SO REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS REQUESTED BELOW
7. INDICATOR TABLE MACROS (PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE
MACROS IN BOTH WORDPERFECT 5.2 AND MICROSOFT WORD CAN ALSO BE
DOWNLOADED FROM THE PPC/CDIE WEBSITE, "CDIE ONLINE";
HTTP://CDIE.USAID.GOV)
8. BUDGET AND WORKFORCE TABLES WITH EXPLANATIONS
9. FIELD SUPPORT TABLE
III. R4 OUTLINE AND DRAFTING INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE NOTE NEW PAGE LENGTH LIMITS FOR EACH SECTION.
THE OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE R4S MORE ACCESSIBLE TO READERS AT ALL
LEVELS OF THE USAID HIERARCHY AND BEYOND; AND TO REDUCE THE TIME
NEEDED TO PREPARE AND COMPLETE DOCUMENT ANALYSIS. THE REALITY
IS THAT LONG DOCUMENTS TEND NOT TO BE READ AND ARE OFTEN TOO
DIFFUSE IN THE MESSAGES THEY ARE TRYING TO CONVEY. YOU ARE
URGED TO STAY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PAGE LIMITS AND MAKE
SELECTIVE USE OF ANNEXES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS DESCRIBED
IN III.G. BELOW ONLY WHEN A CLEAR NEED AND TARGET AUDIENCE
EXISTS.
A. COVER MEMO: (1-2 PAGES.) USED, AT MISSION'S OPTION AND
DISCRETION, TO IDENTIFY MANAGEMENT OR RESOURCE ISSUES NEEDING
SPECIFIC USAID/W ACTION/RESOLUTION.
THIS MEMO WILL BE USED BY THE OPERATING UNIT TO ADDRESS
CRITICAL ISSUES OR CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY ALTER THE
MANAGEMENT CONTRACT SUCH AS SIGNIFICANT EVENTS THAT MAY AFFECT
VIABILITY OF ONE OR MORE SO'S, STAFFING ADJUSTMENTS, UNUSUAL
RESOURCE REQUESTS, AND RELATED WASHINGTON FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS. ALSO
USE THIS SECTION PER GUIDANCE IN II.D. ABOVE TO DESCRIBE CHANGES
MADE TO PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLANS CONSISTENT WITH SECTIONS II.A.1
AND II.D. ABOVE. IT REPLACES THE PREVIOUS MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
SECTION OF PAST R4S. THIS SECTION OF THE R4 IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE
OUTSIDE THE AGENCY.
B. R4 PART I: OVERVIEW AND FACTORS AFFECTING PROGRAM
---- PERFORMANCE (2-3 PAGES).
REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SECTION HAVE NOT CHANGED, BUT ARE
LIMITED TO THAT NECESSARY FOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC
SO'S AND LINKAGE TO HIGHER LEVEL GOALS. THE MISSION SHOULD INCLUDE:
SUMMARY PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE CURRENTLY APPROVED STRATEGIC
PLAN; SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WOULD CAUSE YOU TO CHANGE OR
ELIMINATE AN OBJECTIVE OR ACCOUNT FOR POOR PERFORMANCE
(CRISIS/CONFLICT, ETC.); MOST SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS,
REGARDLESS OF THE LEVEL, SO OR INTERMEDIATE RESULTS (I.R.); COUNTRY
FACTORS THAT HAVE MOST INFLUENCED PROGRESS; OVERALL PROSPECTS FOR
PROGRESS THROUGH THE BUDGET REQUEST YEAR, INCLUDING MISSION ACTIONS
TO OVERCOME FACTORS IMPEDING PROGRESS; PROSPECTS FOR SUCCESSFUL
CLOSEOUT OR GRADUATION, PARTICULARLY FOR COUNTRY PROGRAMS THAT WILL
CLOSE DURING OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE R4 REPORTING PERIOD.
MISSIONS SHOULD INCLUDE HERE DISCUSSIONS OF THE U.S. NATIONAL
INTERESTS AND GOALS THAT ESTABLISHED THE CONTEXT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE EMBASSY'S MPP AND THE LINKAGES OF MISSION SO'S TO THE MPP.
OPERATING UNITS SCHEDULED TO EXIT BY FY 2000 TO 2002 ARE
REQUESTED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PROGRAM CLOSEOUT OR GRADUATION.
BUILDING ON APPROVED OR DRAFT CLOSEOUT PLANS, USE THE R4 TO CONVEY
EXPECTED PROGRESS ACROSS THE PERIOD LEADING TO CLOSEOUT. REINFORCE
YOUR DISCUSSION OF EXPECTED PROGRESS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS WITH THE
FOLLOWING: (1) ASSESSMENT OF REALISTIC PROSPECTS FOR ACHIEVING EACH
OBJECTIVE WITHIN THE REMAINING TIMEFRAME; (2) MANAGERIAL AND
RESOURCE ADJUSTMENTS TO REINFORCE PROSPECTS FOR SUCCESS; (3)
MECHANISMS FOR ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY; AND (4) STATUS OF CLOSEOUT
PLAN PREPARATION, APPROVAL OR IMPLEMENTATION.
C. R4 PART II: RESULTS REVIEW BY SO: (2-3 PAGES OF TEXT
PLUS 3-4 DATA TABLES PER RESULTS FRAMEWORK). INFORMATION
PROVIDED HERE WILL BE THE BASIS OF CP NARRATIVE.
INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION SHOULD INCLUDE:
- BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SO: WHAT IS THE MISSION TRYING TO
ACHIEVE? GENERALLY, THIS WILL CONSIST OF A CONCISE
STATEMENT-OF-CHANGE PLANNED AT THE SO LEVEL, PRINCIPAL INTERMEDIATE
RESULTS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE SO, AND ULTIMATE CUSTOMERS.
- SUMMARY PERFORMANCE STATEMENT: CLEARLY STATE THE
MISSION'S SELF-ASSESSMENT OF THE SO AS EITHER ON-TRACK, EXCEEDING
EXPECTATIONS, OR NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS (ONE OF THESE THREE MUST
BE USED). ADD A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF SUMMARY RATINGS FOR
MIXED-PERFORMANCE SO'S, WHERE PROGRESS ON SOME I.R.'S WAS ON-TRACK
OR BETTER, AND PROGRESS ON OTHERS DID NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS.
- PERFORMANCE OVER THE PAST YEAR RELATIVE TO PLANS:
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) ON THREE-TO-FOUR
INDICATORS SELECTED BY THE MISSION FROM THE SO'S PERFORMANCE
MONITORING PLAN, BECAUSE THEY MOST ACCURATELY DEPICT PERFORMANCE IN
THE REPORTING PERIOD, SHOULD BE DISCUSSED. THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
INDICATOR TARGETS IS NOT NECESSARILY EQUIVALENT TO THE ACHIEVEMENT
OF RESULTS, SO TEXT SHOULD BE CLEAR HOW ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE SELECTED
INDICATORS DEMONSTRATES THAT RESULTS ARE BEING ACHIEVED. FOCUS ON
RESULTS WHERE CHANGE HAS BEEN MOST MEANINGFUL: THE SO, PRINCIPAL
I.R.'S, AND/OR LOWER-LEVEL I.R.'S. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO USE SUMMARY
OUTPUT DATA IF HIGHER LEVEL RESULTS DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE OR
INCOMPLETE. DISCUSS LONGER-TERM SO PERFORMANCE TRENDS WHEREVER I
MPORTANT TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE ON RECENT PROGRESS. NOTE WHEN MORE
FORMAL, LARGER SCALE, EVALUATIONS CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR OVERALL
ASSESSMENT.
- WHEN DISCUSSING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE, MISSIONS SHOULD
PROVIDE INFORMATION (QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE) WHICH GIVES A
SENSE OF USAID'S RELATIVE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL
PERFORMANCE OVER THE PAST YEAR (ATTRIBUTION). IT IS IMPORTANT TO
AVOID APPEARING TO CLAIM AS OUR OWN, RESULTS THAT ARE LARGELY BASED
ON EFFORTS OF OTHERS. NOTE IN A SENTENCE OR TWO, THE KEY ACTIVITIES
BEING FUNDED BY USAID, AND THE PRINCIPAL CONTRACTORS, GRANTEES OR
AGENCIES IMPLEMENTING THE
OBJECTIVE. (NOTE: THE SPECIFICITY REQUESTED ON ACTIVITIES
AND IMPLEMENTORS FACILITATES THE PREPARATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
PRESENTATION ACTIVITY DATA SHEETS.)
- SINCE RESULTS AT THE SO LEVEL NORMALLY REFLECT THE
EFFORTS OF MULTIPLE PARTNERS, INFORMATION ON INVOLVEMENT AND
PROGRESS (OR LACK THEREOF) OF THE HOST COUNTRY AND OTHER DONORS IN
AREAS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED PROGRESS TOWARD THE SO WILL
PROVIDE CONTEXT TO USAID'S RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION TO CHANGE.
- REGARDING EXPECTED PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE BUDGET
REQUEST YEAR, INCLUDING ANTICIPATED BENCHMARK ACHIEVEMENTS (AND/OR
THE MOST IMPORTANT BREAKTHROUGH NECESSARY FOR USAID TO HAVE AN
IMPACT ON THE SO) AND OUTLOOK FOR PROGRESS ON SO'S AND KEY I.R.'S
THAT HAVE NOT MET EXPECTATIONS, THE MISSION SHOULD INDICATE WHAT
WILL FAIL TO BE ACHIEVED SHOULD REQUESTED FUNDING NOT BE
FORTHCOMING, BUT PLEASE DO SO WITHOUT REFERENCING "PRE-DECISIONAL"
BUDGET LEVELS IN THE RESULTS REPORTING SECTION OF YOUR R4. CITE
FACTORS SUCH AS MISSION PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS, CHANGED POLICY
ENVIRONMENT, AND RECENTLY-RESOLVED ISSUES. HERE IS WHERE A MISSION
CAN INDICATE HOW IT IS MANAGING FOR RESULTS. NOTE IN A SENTENCE OR
TWO, NEW KEY ACTIVITIES LIKELY TO BE FUNDED BY USAID, IF ANY.
- FOR MISSION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SO PLAN AND RESULTS
FRAMEWORK THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A STRATEGY REWRITE OR AMENDMENT, E.G.,
MODIFICATION OF AN I.R., PERFORMANCE INDICATOR, OR TARGET, NOTE
WHICH OBJECTIVES OR I.R.'S HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR CLOSEOUT OR
TERMINATION FOR PERFORMANCE REASONS.
- DATA TABLES FOR THREE-TO-FOUR PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PER
SO RESULTS FRAMEWORK ONLY, SHOULD BE SELECTED FROM THE MISSION'S (SO
TEAM'S) PERFORMANCE MONITORING PLAN (PMP) BECAUSE THEY MOST
ACCURATELY DEPICT PERFORMANCE (POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE). IF INDICATORS
SELECTED FROM THE PMP ARE BEING REPORTED ON FOR THE FIRST TIME,
PLEASE INDICATE WHY THEY ARE MORE USEFUL. REPORTING UNITS CONTINUE
TO BE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO MAKE FULL USE OF THE "COMMENT" SECTION
OF EACH DATA TABLE TO ELABORATE ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE
REPORTED DATA-- PARTICULARLY TO ADD QUALITATIVE INTERPRETATION TO
QUANTITATIVE DATA AND QUANTITATIVE SIGNIFICANCE TO QUALITATIVE
DATA--AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH ACHIEVEMENT OF A TARGET IS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO USAID. THE COMMENT SECTION PROVIDES CONTEXT TO THE
DATA. THE PROBABILITY OF MISUSE OR MISINTERPRETATION OF DATA RISES
DRAMATICALLY WHEN THERE IS NO CONTEXT. FURTHER POSSIBLE INCLUSIONS
TO THE COMMENT SECTION ARE: WHETHER AND HOW THE OPERATING UNIT
ASSESSED THE RELIABILITY OF PERFORMANCE DATA PROVIDED BY OTHERS
(E.G., CONTRACTORS, HOST GOV.), PLANS TO
VERIFY AND VALIDATE PERFORMANCE DATA, AND SIGNIFICANT DATA
LIMITATIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR MEASURING PERFORMANCE RESULTS
AGAINST ANTICIPATED PERFORMANCE TARGETS.
SUPPLEMENTARY FORMATTING GUIDANCE:
TO FACILITATE SUBSEQUENT USE OF THIS SECTION FOR THE
CONGRESSIONAL PRESENTATION, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU STRUCTURE THE
INFORMATION FOR THIS SECTION UNDER THE FOLLOWING CP FORMAT HEADINGS:
SUMMARY, KEY RESULTS, PERFORMANCE AND PROSPECTS, POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENT
TO PLANS, OTHER DONOR PROGRAMS, MAJOR CONTRACTORS AND GRANTEES.
IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO GO BEYOND THE 2-3 PAGE LIMIT FOR
THIS SECTION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON A PARTICULAR SO
FOR A SPECIFIC TARGET AUDIENCE, YOU MAY APPEND TO THE R4 DOCUMENT AN
INFORMATION ANNEX FOR THAT PURPOSE AS EXPLAINED IN III.G. BELOW.
THE INTENDED TARGET AUDIENCE SHOULD BE NOTED AT THE TOP OF THE ANNEX
TO ENSURE IT IS PROVIDED. WHILE USE OF SUCH ANNEXES IS PERMITTED,
IT IS NOT ENCOURAGED. INFORMATION PROVIDED IN SUCH AN ANNEX WILL
NOT BE USED BY USAID/W TO AUGMENT THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF AN
SO IN THE RESULTS REVIEW PORTION OF THE R4. LENGTH SHOULD BE
LIMITED.
D. R4 PART III (OLD): STATUS OF THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT
IT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE ADS THAT THIS SECTION OF THE
R4 WOULD PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE AND/OR REVALIDATE THE
STATUS OF THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN BUREAUS AND THEIR
OPERATING UNITS. AS A RESULT OF THE STREAMLINING EFFORT,
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALTER THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WILL NOT BE COVERED
IN THE BODY OF THE R4, BUT SHOULD INSTEAD BE DISCUSSED CANDIDLY IN
THE COVER MEMO DESCRIBED ABOVE.
E. R4 PART III (NEW): RESOURCE REQUEST: (2 PAGES OF TEXT.
- RESOURCE TABLES ADDITIONAL.)
THIS SECTION IS LARGELY UNCHANGED FROM LAST YEAR. IT
SHOULD CONTAIN:
- A BRIEF RATIONALE FOR PROGRAM RESOURCE LEVEL AND SO
ALLOCATIONS, INCLUDING REASONS FOR SIGNIFICANT INCREASES/DECREASES
IN OYB/CP LEVELS ESTABLISHED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAST YEAR'S R4.
- DISCUSS WAYS IN WHICH PERFORMANCE-INFLUENCED RESOURCE
DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY FOR SO'S NOT MEETING EXPECTATIONS AND REPEAT
POOR PERFORMERS;
- DISCUSS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROGRAM REQUEST TO OE
AND STAFFING REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING "CRITICAL" STAFFING
REQUIREMENTS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR RESOURCE REQUESTS (PROGRAM FUNDS,
WORKFORCE, OR OE) THAT EXCEED BUREAU-ASSIGNED CONTROL LEVELS.
- FOR EACH SO, EXPLAIN ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN
PIPELINE LEVELS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND AGENCY FORWARD FUNDING
GUIDELINES PIPELINES SHOULD COVER 12-TO-24 MONTHS OF PLANNED
EXPENDITURES, I.E., OBLIGATIONS GENERALLY SHOULD FUND PROJECTED
EXPENDITURES THROUGH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR FOLLOWING THE YEAR
IN WHICH FUNDS ARE OBLIGATED. DESCRIBE ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION BEING
TAKEN, AND PROVIDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW PIPELINE LEVELS
PROJECTED THROUGH THE PLANNING PERIOD WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
FORWARD FUNDING GUIDELINES.
- INCLUSION OF G FIELD SUPPORT TABLE. WITH MINOR
MODIFICATIONS TO FOCUS ON THE OUTYEARS AS OPPOSED TO THE OYB, THE
FIELD SUPPORT TABLE WILL BE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR'S. THIS TABLE
ESTIMATES THE VOLUME AND TYPE OF SERVICES--FIELD SUPPORT AND
BUY-INS--THAT WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE G BUREAU. IT NEEDS TO
LIST SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH G-MANAGED CONTRACTS,
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND GRANTS, WITH A HIGH-SIDE ESTIMATE OF THE
LEVEL OF RESOURCES NEEDED TO FULLY FUND THESE SERVICES. THE TABLE
PROVIDES A DISTINCTION FOR: (A) FUNDS THAT ARE PART OF THE UNIT'S
PLANNING LEVEL, BUT DESIGNATED FOR OBLIGATION AND MANAGEMENT BY THE
G BUREAU; AND (B) FUNDS THAT ARE PART OF THE UNIT'S PLANNING LEVEL
AND OYB AND OBLIGATED OR SUBOBLIGATED BY THE UNIT THROUGH G BUREAU
MECHANISMS (UNIT OBLIGATION, GENERALLY REFERRED TO AS BUY-IN). IN
ADDITION, PLEASE SPECIFY THE FOLLOWING IN THE FIELD SUPPORT TABLE:
(1) THE SO FOR WHICH THESE SERVICES ARE NEEDED, (2) THE NAME AND
NUMBER OF THE G BUREAU ACTIVITY TO BE USED, (3) THE LEVEL OF
PRIORITY THE UNIT PLACES ON THE FIELD SUPPORT AND BUY-IN SERVICES,
(4) THE DURATION OF THE FIELD SUPPORT AND BUY-IN SERVICES; AND (5)
THE NAME OF THE ENTITY OBLIGATING THE
FUNDS--G OR OPERATING UNIT. FOR FY 2000 AND FY 2001,
MISSIONS SHOULD THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES ARE
NEEDED, EVEN IF THE G BUREAU DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE AN EXISTING
MECHANISM AT THE PRESENT TIME. OPERATING UNITS SHOULD DESCRIBE IN A
FOOTNOTE SERVICE REQUESTS THAT GO BEYOND EXISTING G BUREAU
MECHANISMS.
F. WORKFORCE AND OE
THERE ARE FOUR BASIC DATA SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR
WORKFORCE AND OPERATING EXPENSES:
1) WORKFORCE (TABLE WF-XXXXX.WK4 USED BY EACH OPERATING
UNIT IN WASHINGTON AND OVERSEAS), SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE
VARIOUS TYPES OF WORKFORCE (END OF YEAR ON-BOARD LEVELS) BY SO/SPO
AND BY MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES. TOTALS MUST BE IN WHOLE NUMBERS;
2) OPERATING EXPENSES (TABLE OE-XXXXX.WK4 USED BY
OVERSEAS OPERATING UNITS AND TABLE--USED BY WASHINGTON OPERATING
UNITS), SHOWING THE PROPOSED USE OF OE AND TRUST FUND RESOURCES BY
RESOURCE CATEGORY FOR THE FY 99 ESTIMATE,
FY 2000 AND FY 2001 TARGET AND REQUEST LEVELS. FOR
OVERSEAS OE TABLES, IDENTIFY THE U.S. DOLLARS USED FOR LOCAL
CURRENCY PURCHASES AND THE EXCHANGE RATE USED IN COMPUTATIONS.
3) TRUST FUND AND FSN VOLUNTARY SEPARATION
PAYMENT/WITHDRAWAL INFORMATION (TABLE TF-FSN.WK4 USED ONLY BY
OVERSEAS OPERATING UNITS) SHOWING A) AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL CURRENCY
TRUST FUNDS AND B) DEPOSITS TO AND WITHDRAWALS FROM THE FSN
VOLUNTARY SEPARATION ACCOUNT. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF AN OVERSEAS UNIT
SHOWS OBLIGATIONS UNDER OBJECT CLASS 12.1 ON THE OE TABLE FOR FSN
VOLUNTARY SEPARATION (FSN DIRECT HIRE OR FSN PSC), THEN THE FSN
VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PORTION OF THIS TABLE MUST BE SUBMITTED. THE
OE TOTALS ON THIS TABLE MUST MATCH THE TOTAL FSN VOLUNTARY
SEPARATION AMOUNTS ROE FSN DIRECT-HIRE AND FSN PSCS ON THE OE TABLE.
ALSO, EXCHANGE RATES USED IN COMPUTING THE DOLLAR EQUIVALENT OF
LOCAL CURRENCY TRUST FUNDS MUST BE PROVIDED--THIS INFORMATION IS
REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AGENCY'S CONGRESSIONAL PRESENTATION.
4) CONTROLLER OPERATIONS (TABLE CO-XXXXX.WK4). THIS IS
IN THE SAME FORMAT AS THE OVERSEAS OE TABLE, BUT IS TO REFLECT ONLY
THOSE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER AT OVERSEAS
MISSIONS.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME REFORMATTING OF THE WORKFORCE
TABLE, ALL TABLES ARE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR. SEPARATE SPECIAL
SCHEDULES WILL BE PROVIDED TO M, G, GC, AND LPA FOR THEIR
"ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE COST CENTER" BUDGET ACCOUNTS.
M/B WILL ISSUE FY 1999 OE AND U.S. DIRECT-HIRE WORKFORCE
LEVELS TO BUREAUS (INCLUDING LEVELS AVAILABLE FOR OVERSEAS
MISSIONS), FYÊ2000 TARGETS, AND FY 2001 TARGETS AT A LATER DATE.
IN ADDITION TO THE TABULAR INFORMATION, EACH OPERATING
UNIT MUST PROVIDE NARRATIVE EXPLAINING THE IMPACT OF FY 2000 AND
FY 2001 TARGETS ON THEIR OPERATIONS. THE OE AND WORKFORCE
TABLES ALSO PROVIDE UNITS WITH THE ABILITY TO REQUEST LEVELS
DIFFERENT FROM THE FY 2000 AND FY 2001 TARGET LEVELS (REQUEST
LEVELS). IF A UNIT SUBMITS A REQUEST LEVEL IN ADDITION TO THE
TARGET LEVEL FOR FY 2000 AND/OR FY 2001, THE NARRATIVE MUST
THOROUGHLY JUSTIFY THE NEED FOR THE REQUEST LEVEL AND IDENTIFY THE
SPECIFIC ACTIONS (WHETHER PROGRAM OR OE RELATED) WHICH WOULD BE
TAKEN IF THE UNIT WERE TO BE HELD TO THE TARGET LEVEL.
G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ANNEXES
AS NOTED AT THE END OF SECTION III.C. ABOVE, MISSIONS THAT
DESIRE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SPECIFIC TARGET
AUDIENCES ON PROGRAM RELATED MATTERS MAY, OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, USE
AN ANNEX FOR THIS PURPOSE.
BUREAU MAY REQUEST ADDITIONAL REPORTING FOR PURPOSES OTHER
THAN ASSESSING COUNTRY SO PERFORMANCE (SUCH AS REGIONAL TREND
ANALYSIS, REPORTING ON MULTI-COUNTRY INITIATIVES, AND SPECIAL
EXTERNAL REPORTING NEEDS THAT MAY VARY YEAR-TO-YEAR). THIS
REPORTING WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH SUPPLEMENTAL ANNEXES SO AS TO
FOCUS THE MAIN R4 TEXT ON PERFORMANCE VIS-A-VIS AGREED UPON STRATEGY
OBJECTIVES. A FOLLOW-UP CABLE IS PLANNED FOR JANUARY WHICH WILL
INCLUDE ALL REQUESTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON FOR
THIS R4 CYCLE. PPC AND THE INTER-BUREAU R4 WORKING GROUP WILL
STRIVE TO KEEP THESE REQUIREMENTS CLEAR, LIMITED AND VOLUNTARY.
OPERATING UNITS SHOULD ADVISE PPC/PC IF THEY RECEIVE REQUESTS FOR R4
REPORTING WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPROVED
BY PPC. REQUESTS WILL CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE UNIT MAKING THE REQUEST,
THE USE TO WHICH INFORMATION WILL BE PUT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
WHICH UNITS WOULD BE ASKED TO ADDRESS. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED
OTHERWISE, THIS ADDITIONAL REPORTING WILL BE CONSIDERED VOLUNTARY.
THE ONLY MANDATORY ANNEXES IDENTIFIED AT THIS POINT
INCLUDE THE TITLE II SUPPLEMENTARY PERFORMANCE DATA REQUIRED BY BHR
FOR STAND-ALONE NON-EMERGENCY TITLE II PROGRAMS, AND THE
NON-PRESENCE REPORTING ANNEXES. ONLY SOME MISSIONS ARE AFFECTED BY
THESE REQUIREMENTS. SEE SECTION IV.B AND D BELOW FOR DETAILS.
IV. SPECIAL REPORTING SITUATIONS
A. G BUREAU FIELD SUPPORT
THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUREAU FIELD SUPPORT
(SERVICES AND COMMODITIES REQUESTED AND FUNDED BY OPERATING UNITS)
WILL BE CAPTURED AND REPORTED IN MISSION STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES.
B. BHR PROGRAMMED RESOURCES
BHR IS SEEKING WAYS TO SIMPLIFY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR
PL-480 PROGRAMS TO PARALLEL CHANGES TAKING PLACE WITH DOLLAR- FUNDED
PROGRAMS. ON NOVEMBER 30, 1998 GUIDANCE WAS ISSUED TO COOPERATING
SPONSORS (CS) AND MISSIONS ON RESULTS REPORTING FOR TITLE II
PROGRAMS. THIS GUIDANCE REQUESTED THAT CS RESULTS REPORTS BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO MISSIONS BY JANUARY 30TH (AND TO BHR/FFP BY MARCH 1ST)
SO AS TO SERVE AS INPUT IN PREPARATION OF THE R4S AS NEEDED. TO
HELP MEET CONGRESSIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE II AND
TITLE III RESOURCES, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
R4 DOCUMENTS:
1. INTEGRATED PROGRAMS: IN CASES WHERE TITLE II/III AND
DOLLAR-FUNDED ACTIVITIES ARE INTEGRATED TO SUPPORT ONE OR MORE
STRATEGIC OR SPECIAL OBJECTIVES, THE SO PERFORMANCE NARRATIVE MUST
INCLUDE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTRIBUTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
PL-480 RESOURCES TO ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY IN THE COUNTRY USING
APPROPRIATE QUANTIFIABLE INDICATOR DATA FROM THE PERFORMANCE
MONITORING PLAN. BHR/FFP HAS AN ILLUSTRATIVE LIST OF INDICATORS FOR
THIS PURPOSE AND CAN ADVISE, IF NECESSARY, ON WHICH ONE OF YOUR
EXISTING INDICATORS WOULD WORK BEST.
THE SO PERFORMANCE NARRATIVE CONTAINED IN THE R4 WILL FORM
THE BASIS OF THE AGENCY'S PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR INTEGRATED
PROGRAMS. BHR REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ACTIVITY (PAA)
SUBMISSIONS WILL CONTINUE.
COOPERATING SPONSORS AND MISSION SO TEAMS ARE EXPECTED TO
WORK TOGETHER IN REVIEWING THE UTILITY AND COST/BENEFIT OF
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE ENTIRE SO INCLUDING INDICATORS USED
BY TITLE II SPONSORS AS SPECIFIED IN PRIOR AGREEMENTS. AGREEMENT ON
ELIMINATION OF CS INDICATORS WILL BE CONFIRMED THROUGH PAA REVIEWS
WITH MISSION INPUTS, THROUGH OTHER CONSULTATIONS WITH MISSIONS AND
BHR/FFP, AND IF NECESSARY, THROUGH GRANT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
AMENDMENTS.
2. STAND-ALONE PROGRAMS: WHEN NON-EMERGENCY TITLE II AND
TITLE III RESOURCES DO NOT CONTRIBUTE DIRECTLY TO A STRATEGIC OR
SPECIAL OBJECTIVE, MISSIONS ARE ASKED TO INCLUDE A SPECIAL
INFORMATION ANNEX TO THE R4 PER SECTION III.G. ABOVE WHICH ADDRESSES
IN 1-2 PAGES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (1) THE CONTRIBUTION OF
THESE RESOURCES TO FOOD SECURITY IN THE COUNTRY; AND (2) THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMS SUPPORTED WITH THESE RESOURCES IN
ACHIEVING RESULTS AGREED UPON IN THE RELEVANT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
PROPOSAL (DAP). THE CS REPORTS ON TITLE II ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE
REFERENCES IN THE ANNEX PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO BHR/FFP IN ADDITION TO
THE MISSIONS. BHR/FFP WILL USE THIS INFORMATION, ALONG WITH PAA
SUBMISSIONS, TO MAKE FOOD RESOURCE ALLOCATION DECISIONS. CS ARE
ENCOURAGED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE IN SECTION II.A.1. OF THIS CABLE
RELATED TO ELIMINATING PERFORMANCE MEASURES THAT ARE NOT USEFUL FOR
USAID/CS MANAGEMENT PURPOSES AND/OR WHICH ARE NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO
COLLECT. AGREEMENT ON ELIMINATION OF CS INDICATORS WILL BE
CONFIRMED THROUGH PAA REVIEWS WITH MISSION INPUTS, THROUGH OTHER
CONSULTATIONS WITH MISSIONS AND BHR/FFP, AND IF NECESSARY, THROUGH
GRANT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AMENDMENTS.
3. OTHER PROGRAMS: BHR WILL REPORT ON TITLE II EMERGENCY,
DISASTER AND TRANSITION ASSISTANCE (IDA) RESULTS AND RESOURCE NEEDS,
AND MAY CONTACT RELEVANT OPERATING UNITS FOR ASSISTANCE IN DOING SO.
BHR WILL ALSO REPORT ON PVC GRANTS TO STRENGTHEN THE CAPACITY OF
USAID'S PVO AND CDO PARTNERS AS WELL AS ASHA GRANTS.
C. CLOSEOUT AND GRADUATION
IN KEEPING WITH APPROVED CLOSEOUT PLANS, IF NOT PREVIOUSLY
REPORTED OR IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED,
PLEASE REPORT THE FOLLOWING IN A SPECIAL INFORMATION ANNEX PER
SECTION III.G. ABOVE: (1) BRIEF SCHEDULE FOR TERMINATION OF PRINCIPA
L ACTIVITIES; AND (2) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONTINUE SELECTED
ACTIVITIES AFTER CLOSEOUT WITH RELATED RATIONALE AND PLAN (ON AN
EXCEPTION BASIS).
D. NON-PRESENCE COUNTRIES (NPC)
THE NUMBER OF USAID-FUNDED ACTIVITIES IN NON-PRESENCE
COUNTRIES IS CREATING INCREASED MANAGEMENT VULNERABILITY AND DEMANDS
FOR MORE COUNTRY LEVEL R4-LIKE REPORTING (THREE ENI NPC PROGRAMS
ALREADY HAVE FULL R4'S PREPARED EVERY YEAR). WE ARE SEEKING TO ENSU
RE THAT EVERY NPC PROGRAM WITH DEFINED COUNTRY-LEVEL STRATEGIC OR
SPECIAL OBJECTIVES IS SUBJECT TO R4 REPORTING. AT THE REGIONAL
BUREAUS' DISCRETION, THIS REPORTING MAY CONSIST OF A FULL R4 OR AN
ABBREVIATED R4-LIKE DOCUMENT AS OUTLINED BELOW.
USAID REGIONAL OFFICES AND BILATERAL MISSIONS WHICH HAVE
BEEN ASSIGNED SPECIFIC OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR NPC PROGRAMS
WITH COUNTRY-LEVEL OBJECTIVES NON-PRESENCE COUNTRIES BY THEIR
REGIONAL BUREAUS, ARE REQUESTED TO PREPARE EITHER A FULL OR
ABBREVIATED (CONSULT WITH YOUR BUREAU TO DETERMINE WHICH) R4
SUBMISSION FOR EACH NON-PRESENCE COUNTRY. IN THE CASE OF
ABBREVIATED R4 REPORTS, THESE MAY BE INCLUDED AS AN ANNEX TO THE
OPERATING UNITS' OWN R4 DOCUMENT (ONE ANNEX PER NPC). MISSIONS WITH
BILATERAL OR TWINNING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR
TITLE II PROGRAMS ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO SUBMIT A
SUPPLEMENTAL ANNEX AS DISCUSSED IN SECTION IV.B.2. ABOVE
(STAND-ALONE PROGRAMS). MISSIONS WHO ARE UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS
NEW REQUEST SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR REGIONAL BUREAU FOR
ASSISTANCE. REGIONAL BUREAU WILL MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION
REGARDING WHICH NPC COUNTRIES WILL BE COVERED BY R4 REPORTS THIS
YEAR BY ABBREVIATED R4-LIKE SUMMARIES. DUE TO THEIR LINKAGES WITH
REGIONAL STATE BUREAUS AND THE MPP PROCESS, USAID REGIONAL BUREAUS
WILL LIKELY BECOME ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR NPC REPORTING. THEY
SHOULD, THEREFORE, CONSIDER POSSIBLE FUTURE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
WHEN APPROVING NPC ACTIVITIES IN THEIR REGION.
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE COVERED IN 2-4 PAGES FOR THE
ABBREVIATED R4-LIKE NPC ANNEXES:
- A PROGRAM OVERVIEW, OUTLINING THE OBJECTIVES BEING
PURSUED (WHEN THESE EXIST) AND/OR ACTIVITIES BEING IMPLEMENTED.
- AN INDICATION OF THE LINKAGES BETWEEN USAID-FUNDED
INTERVENTIONS AND THE MPP GOALS FOR THAT COUNTRY. THIS IS AS
CRITICAL FOR NPCS AS FOR PRESENCE COUNTRIES.
- A DISCUSSION OF SIGNIFICANT PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENTS AND HOW
THESE ARE CONTRIBUTING TO MPP GOALS.
- RELATED DATA TABLES FOR INDICATORS AND RESOURCE
REQUESTS.
V. CHANGES IN WASHINGTON REVIEW OF R4S
THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES SUMMARY INFORMATION TO MISSIONS ON
CHANGES TO THE R4 REVIEW PROCESSES IN WASHINGTON. THIS IS NOT A
COMPREHENSIVE LIST, BUT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHANGED CONTEXT IN WHICH R4'S WILL BE REVIEWED.
THIS YEAR, THERE WILL BE NO NUMERICAL SCORE CALCULATED BY
WASHINGTON REVIEWERS FOR EACH OBJECTIVE. INSTEAD, READERS WILL NOTE
THE MISSION'S SELF-ASSESSMENT AND ONLY REQUEST FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
IF THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT REASONS TO DOUBT THE OVERALL SELF-ASS
ESSMENT. THIS SHOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE NEED FOR DETAILED
BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSIONS ON INDICATORS AND INDICATOR METHODOLOGY.
THE OVERALL MISSION SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (MET, EXCEEDED OR FELL SHORT)
WILL CONSTITUTE THE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY FOR THAT SO. QUESTIONING OF
ASSESSMENTS WILL OCCUR ONLY IF THEY APPEAR TO LACK CANDOR AND BE
WELL OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH USAID/W EXPECTATION, WHICH IS TYPICALLY
BASED ON A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE FROM TDYS, EVALUATIONS, AND REPORTS
FROM OTHER SOURCES.
THE THREE NON-PERFORMANCE FACTORS THAT INFORM THE BUDGET
PROCESS--NEED, COUNTRY COMMITMENT, AND FOREIGN POLICY--WILL CONTINUE
TO INFORM BUDGET ALLOCATION DECISIONS, BUT NO ATTEMPT WILL BE MADE
TO CONVERT THESE INTO NUMERICAL SCORES. PPC AND THE REGIONAL B
UREAUS WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON NON- PERFORMANCE FACTORS. A
SUMMARY TABLE WILL BE PREPARED BY EACH BUREAU SHOWING FOR EACH SO
THE FINAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AND THE THREE NON-PERFORMANCE
CATEGORIZATIONS. NO EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO CREATE A COMPOSITE SUM
MARY SCORE INCORPORATING ALL FACTORS. THE SUMMARY TABLE WILL BE
USED BY BUREAUS AS A STARTING POINT FOR RESOURCE ALLOCATION
DECISIONS.
THE PRESUMPTION FOR BUDGET ALLOCATION PURPOSES IS THAT ALL
APPROVED OBJECTIVES ARE IMPORTANT TO THE AGENCY AND SHOULD RECEIVE
THE RESOURCES NEEDED TO SUSTAIN PROGRESS. IN THE SHORT-TERM
(ONE-TO-TWO YEARS), DIFFICULTIES IN ACHIEVING EXPECTED PROGRESS ON A
PARTICULAR SO SHOULD RESULT IN INCREASED MANAGEMENT ATTENTION AT
BOTH MISSION AND WASHINGTON LEVELS. IF, AFTER REASONABLE EFFORTS,
PROGRESS IS NOT IMPROVED, THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT THE BUDGET PLANNED
FOR THAT SO MAY BE REDUCED, TEMPORARILY SUSPENDED, OR EVEN
REALLOCATED COMPLETELY AND THE SO TERMINATED OR SIGNIFICANTLY
REDESIGNED. SUCH DECISIONS WILL BE ARRIVED AT COLLABORATIVELY BY
MISSION AND WASHINGTON MANAGEMENT.
OBJECTIVES WHOSE PERFORMANCE SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS
EXPECTATIONS WILL LIKELY RECEIVE SPECIAL ATTENTION IN AGENCY ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE REPORTS (APR). HIGH PERFORMANCE WILL NOT NECESSARILY
JUSTIFY A CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES BEYOND THAT NEEDED TO
ACHIEVE AGREED UPON RESULTS.
THOSE MISSIONS SELECTED BY THEIR BUREAUS FOR A FULL
PROGRAM WEEK (ROUGHLY ONE-THIRD OF COUNTRY PROGRAMS) CAN EXPECT A
FULL AND DETAILED REVIEW OF THEIR PROGRAM. THOSE NOT SUBJECT TO A
PROGRAM WEEK REVIEW SHOULD, NEVERTHELESS, BE MINDFUL OF THE NEED TO
MAINTAIN ADEQUATE INFORMATION FLOW WITH WASHINGTON.
MISSIONS SHOULD NO LONGER EXPECT REGULAR ANNUAL MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT CABLES. RATHER, THESE WILL BE PREPARED ONLY WHEN THERE ARE
SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT INITIATED WITH APPROVAL
OF THE COUNTRY (OR UNIT) STRATEGIC PLAN.
THE ADS WILL BE REVISED WHERE NECESSARY (E.G., 203.3.5.F,
AND 201.5.12.C, AMONG OTHERS) TO REFLECT CHANGES IN THE R4
DOCUMENTATION AND REVIEW PROCESS.
VI. MINIMIZE CONSIDERED FOR ASMARA, DAR ES SALAAM,
NAIROBI, KINSHASA, AND TIRANA. YY
AID/GC:STISA(DRAFT)
S/RPP:TGREENTREE(DRAFT)
AID/ES:RCONROY Y
NAIROBI PRIORITY
KINSHASA PRIORITY
RIGA PRIORITY
TIRANA PRIORITY Y
Return to FY2001 R4 Materials
|