Common use of Unit of Measure Clause in Contracts

Unit of Measure. Number (of OPI and OCA score) Disaggregated by: OPI and XXX Rationale or Management Utility, Integration Approach (optional): A strong and self sustaining organization can achieve the desired outcomes of project activities, which becomes instrumental to achieve overall organizational goal. Even in the case of project implementation, a competent and robust organization is mandatory. This is linked with output 4 and overall goal of the organization. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Activities/Implementing Mechanisms: Board, Management and Staffs Data Source: OPI and OCA re-assessment score Method of Data Acquisition: USAID assess the OPI and OCA score at the end of the project Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID : Xxxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxx (AOR), Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (AAOR) Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx/Pro Public Location of Data Storage (optional): Pro Public's excel sheet DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): XX Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):TBD Potential Data Limitations and Significance (optional):Since the data collected for this indicator is based on a self-assessment there are some limitations to its independence/legitimacy. Actions Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional): PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING Data Analysis (optional): This information will inform organizational capacity of Pro Public in terms of achieve the organizational goals and objectives. Analysis should be carried out across various indicators as listed in OCA and OPI reference sheets. Mission/Team Review (optional): BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2016/ 2.73 (OCA) and 53 % (OPI) Rationale for Targets (optional): 3.50 for (OCA) 65 % for (OPI) Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Baseline Units (optional):

Unit of Measure. Number (of OPI and OCA score) representatives Disaggregated by: OPI and XXX Rationale or Location; Respondent Sex; Youth vs. Non-Youth Respondent Justification & Management Utility, Integration Approach (optional): A strong and self sustaining organization can achieve : This will allow XXXXX-K to monitor the desired outcomes involvement of project activities, which becomes instrumental to achieve overall organizational goal. Even some of the key stakeholders in the case of project implementation, a competent governance and robust organization is mandatory. This is linked with output 4 and overall goal of democracy process within the organizationproject. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Activities/Implementing MechanismsData Collection Method: Board, Management and Staffs Documenting the number of representatives based on source documentation Data Source: OPI and OCA re-assessment score Method of Data Acquisition: USAID assess the OPI and OCA score at the end of the project Activity (training, workshop, form, mass media) reports; Grantee Workplans; Grantee Reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Responsible: Xxxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxx (AOR), Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (AAOR) Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx/Pro Public XXX Specialist Location of Data Storage (optional): Pro Public's excel sheet Storage: Data will be uploaded to FHI 360’s SharePoint DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Initial Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): XX Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):TBD Potential Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (optional):Since the data collected for this indicator is based on a self-assessment there are some limitations to its independenceif any): N/legitimacy. Actions A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional): Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS, REVIEW, & REPORTING ANALYSIS Data Analysis (optional): This information Analysis: Data will inform organizational capacity be aggregated and analyzed based on the location Presentation of Pro Public Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported annually in terms of achieve SADES-K’s QPRs through the organizational goals and objectivesPITT table OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this activity is 0. Analysis should The LOP target will be carried out across various indicators as listed in OCA and OPI reference sheets. Mission/Team Review (optional): BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2016/ 2.73 (OCA) and 53 % (OPI) Rationale for Targets (optional): 3.50 for (OCA) 65 % for (OPI) 150 representatives Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 19 February 2019 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET USAID Development Objective (optional1): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting UnitsDevolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.3): Informed and empowered citizens participate in county affairs Name of Result Area (3): Civic and democratic space protected Name of Indicator (6): Number of USG-assisted media-outlets and media-sector CSOs and institutions that serve to strengthen the independent media or journalists Is this a Standard Indicator: Baseline Units ☐ No ☒ Yes (optional):DR 5.3-2) DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): Any CSO or institution that receives technical assistance or financial support from SADES-K project will be counted as having received USG assistance. To be counted under this indicator, CSO and institutions must endeavor to defend free media rights, provide professional journalism or media training, lobby on behalf of independent media sector interests, and/or otherwise serve to strengthen the functioning of independent media and/or journalists as at least one substantive component of their mission or agenda. Examples include: journalist unions, media industry associations, mid-career journalist training centers, university journalism schools, press councils, media rights monitoring groups, or any CSO which serves to strengthen or support the independent media and/or journalists as part of its mission. Unit of Measure: Number of CSOs and support institutions Disaggregated by: Location; Entity Type (e.g. CSO, Media Outlet, Institution)

Unit of Measure. Number (of OPI and OCA score) forums Disaggregated by: OPI and XXX Rationale or Location; Theme Justification & Management Utility, Integration Approach (optional): A strong : This indicator will allow SADES-K to monitor the levels of effort towards consensus-building as well as where current efforts are being supported and self sustaining organization can achieve the desired outcomes of project activities, which becomes instrumental to achieve overall organizational goal. Even in the case of project implementation, a competent and robust organization is mandatory. This is linked with output 4 and overall goal of the organizationidentify where there may be gaps. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION BY USAID Activities/Implementing MechanismsData Collection Method: Board, Management and Staffs Documenting the number of forums based on source documentation Data Source: OPI and OCA re-assessment score Method of Data Acquisition: USAID assess the OPI and OCA score at the end of the project Activity Reports; Grantee Reports Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Annual Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible for Data at USAID Responsible: Xxxxxx XxxxXXXXX-Xxxxx (AOR), Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx (AAOR) Individual(s) Responsible for Providing Data to USAID (optional):Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx/Pro Public K XXX Specialist and Internews M&E Team Location of Data Storage (optional): Pro Public's excel sheet Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Most Recent Initial Data Quality Assessment and Name(s) of Reviewer(s): XX Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional):TBD Potential Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (optional):Since the data collected for this indicator is based on a self-assessment there are some limitations to its independenceif any): N/legitimacy. Actions A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations (optional): Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSISANALYSIS Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the themes and locations Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target is 24 consensus building forums. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 7 January 2019 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.3): Informed and empowered citizens participate in county affairs Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Name of Indicator (13): Number of people participating in USG-supported events, REVIEWtraining, & REPORTING Data Analysis or activities designed to build mass support for peace and reconciliation Is this a Standard Indicator: ☐ No ☒ Yes (optionalPS.6.2-4) DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): This information indicator registers the number of men and women with a party or parties to the conflict attending events or activities, both public and private, related to building support for peace and reconciliation. This indicator will inform organizational capacity only count beneficiaries once per fiscal year. Unit of Pro Public Measure: Number of Individuals Disaggregated by: Sex; Youth vs. Non-Youth; New vs. Continuing (Year to Year) Justification & Management Utility: For peace and democratic reforms to be effectively implemented, men and women at the community level need to be involved in terms the process. In addition, ensuring that the communities participate in the political process address a root cause of achieve conflict and instability. Individuals participating in public fora supported by XXXXX-X related to the organizational goals democratic reform process will likely be counted here, to be determined in consultation with AOR. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of individuals based on source documentation Data Source: Sign in Sheets; Grantee Reports Frequency and objectivesTiming of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: XXXXX-K XXX Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on sex Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. Analysis The LOP target is 9,280 individuals. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET USAID Development Objective (1): Devolution effectively implemented USAID Intermediate Result (1.2): Enabling environment for devolution strengthened Name of Result Area: Cross-Cutting Name of Indicator (14): Number of laws, policies or procedures drafted, proposed or adopted to promote constitutional reform at regional, county or national level which were supported by XXXXX-X Is this a Standard Indicator: ☒ No ☐ Yes DESCRIPTION Precise Definition(s): There are many factors influencing laws, policies or procedures and SADES-K is not responsible for pushing them forward. However, SADES-K activities may help catalyze these processes. Any law, policy, procedure or similar directive that is formally drafted, proposed, or adopted by either the legislative branch or a unit of the executive branch at any level, where SADES-K directly or through grantees contributed advice or input (and this can be verified) will be counted here. Drafted refers to the preparation and writing of any legislation, policy, or procedure to be formally presented and accepted for consideration by legislative or executive bodies. Proposed means that the draft law, policy, or procedure is presented to the necessary legislative or executive bodies for consideration. Adopted refers to new policies not previously existing that have been adopted by the legislative or executive branch. Unit of Measure: Number of laws, policies, or procedures Disaggregated by: Status (e.g. drafted, proposed, or adopted); Type (i.e. law, policy, or procedure) Justification & Management Utility: This indicator will allow SADES-K to track and depict how technical and financial assistance through SADES-K has helped push forward key laws, policies, and procedures in Kenya and has facilitated greater accountability amongst the different government agencies towards furthering democratic governance. PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION Data Collection Method: Documenting the number of changes based on source documentation Data Source: Reports from grantees that document changes to public policies; Advocacy Tracking Matrix: Policy Tracking Matrix Frequency and Timing of Data Acquisition: Quarterly Estimated Cost of Data Acquisition: No additional cost to the program Individual(s) Responsible: XXXXX-K XXX Specialist Location of Data Storage: Data will be stored on FHI 360’s SharePoint DATA QUALITY ISSUES Date of Initial Data Quality Assessment: TBD Known Data Limitations and Significance (if any): N/A Action Taken or Planned to Address Data Limitations: N/A Date of Future Data Quality Assessments: TBD Procedures for Future Data Quality Assessments: See Annex 3 – Data Quality Assessment Process PLAN FOR DATA ANALYSIS Data Analysis: Data will be aggregated and analyzed based on the level of influence Presentation of Data: Tables and narrative explanations highlighting notable achievements and disaggregation Reporting of Data: Data will be reported quarterly in SADES-K’s QPRs through the PITT table OTHER NOTES Notes on Baselines/Targets: The baseline for this indicator is 0. The LOP target will be 5 public policy changes. Other Notes THIS SHEET WAS LAST UPDATED ON: 20 February 2019 ANNEX 3: DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SHEET Title of Performance Indicator: Indicator should be carried out across various indicators copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Data Source(s): Information can be copied directly from the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet Entity Who Provided the Data: It is recommended that this checklist is completed for each implementing partner that contributes data to an indicator Period for which the Data are Being Reported: Type of Indicator: ☐ Standard Foreign Assistance Indicator ☐ Custom Indicator DATA ASSESSMENT TEAM Date(s) of Assessment: Assessment Team Members: Data Quality Assessment Methodology: DATA ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS Yes No Comments Validity – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended results 1 Does the information collected measure what it is supposed to measure? Reliability – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over time 1 When the same data collection method is used to measure/observe the same thing multiple times, is the same result produced each time? 2 Are data collection and analysis methods documented in writing and being used to ensure the same procedures are followed each time? Timeliness – Data should be available at a useful frequency, should be current, and should be timely enough to influence management decision-making 3 Are the data reported as listed in OCA and OPI reference sheets. Mission/Team Review (optional): BASELINE AND TARGETS Baseline Timeframe (optional): 2016/ 2.73 (OCA) and 53 % (OPI) Rationale for Targets (optional): 3.50 for (OCA) 65 % for (OPI) Other Notes (optional): GEOGRAPHIC DIMENSION Data Reporting Units: Baseline Units (optional):soon as possible after collection?