NUMBER 6

2ND EDITION, 2010

PERFORMANCE MONITORING & EVALUATION

TIPS
SELECTING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
ABOUT TIPS
These TIPS provide practical advice and suggestions to USAID managers on issues related to
performance monitoring and evaluation. This publication is a supplemental reference to the
Automated Directive System (ADS) Chapter 203.

WHAT ARE
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS?
Performance indicators define a
measure of change for the
results identified in a Results
Framework (RF). When wellchosen, they convey whether
key objectives are achieved in a
meaningful
way
for
performance
management.
While a result (such as an
Assistance Objective or an
Intermediate Result) identifies
what we hope to accomplish,
indicators tell us by what
standard that result will be
measured.
Targets define
whether there will be an

expected increase or decrease,

and by what magnitude.1
Indicators may be quantitative
or
qualitative
in
nature.
Quantitative
indicators
are
numerical: an example is a
persons height or weight. On
the other hand, qualitative
indicators require subjective
evaluation. Qualitative data are
sometimes
reported
in
numerical form, but those
numbers do not have arithmetic
meaning on their own. Some
examples are a score on an
institutional capacity index or
progress along a milestone
scale.
When developing
quantitative
or
qualitative
indicators, the important point
is that the indicator be
1

For further information, see TIPS 13:

Building a Results Framework and TIPS
8: Baselines and Targets.
1

Selecting an optimal set of indicators

to track progress against key results
lies at the heart of an effective
performance management system.
This TIPS provides guidance on how to
select effective performance
indicators.

constructed in a way that

permits
consistent
measurement over time.
USAID has developed many
performance indicators over the
years. Some examples include
the dollar value of nontraditional
exports,
private
investment as a percentage of
gross
domestic
product,
contraceptive prevalence rates,
child mortality rates, and
progress on a legislative reform
index.

WHY ARE
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
IMPORTANT?

FOR WHAT RESULTS

ARE PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
REQUIRED?

Performance indicators provide

objective evidence that an
intended change is occurring.
Performance indicators lie at
the heart of developing an
effective
performance
management system they
define the data to be collected
and enable actual results
achieved to be compared with
planned results over time.
Hence,
they
are
an
indispensable management tool
for making evidence-based
decisions
about
program
strategies
and
activities.
Performance indicators can also
be used:

THE PROGRAM LEVEL

USAIDs ADS requires that at
least one indicator be chosen
for each result in the Results
Framework in order to measure
progress (see ADS 203.3.3.1)2.
This includes the Assistance
Objective (the highest-level
objective
in
the
Results
Framework)
as
well
as
supporting Intermediate Results
(IRs)3. These indicators should
be included in the Mission or
Office
Performance
Management Plan (PMP) (see
TIPS 8: Preparing a PMP).

To assist managers in
focusing
on
the
achievement
of
development results.
To
provide
objective
evidence that results are
being achieved.
To orient and motivate staff
and
partners
toward
achieving results.
To communicate USAID
achievements
to
host
country counterparts, other
partners, and customers.
To more effectively report
results achieved to USAID's
stakeholders, including the
U.S. Congress, Office of
Management and Budget,
and citizens.

PROJECT LEVEL
AO teams are required to
collect data regularly for
projects and activities, including
inputs, outputs, and processes,
to ensure they are progressing
as
expected
and
are
contributing to relevant IRs and
AOs. These indicators should
be included in a project-level
monitoring
and
evaluation
2

For further discussion of AOs and IRs

(which are also termed impact and
outcomes respectively in other
systems) refer to TIPS 13: Building a
Results Framework.
3
Note that some results frameworks
incorporate IRs from other partners if
those results are important for USAID
to achieve the AO. This is discussed in
further detail in TIPS 13: Building a
Results Framework. If these IRs are
included, then it is recommended that
they be monitored, although less
rigorous standards apply.

(M&E) plan. The M&E plan

should be integrated in project
management and reporting
systems (e.g., quarterly, semiannual, or annual reports).

TYPES OF
INDICATORS IN
USAID SYSTEMS
Several different types of
indicators are used in USAID
systems.
It is important to
understand the different roles
and
functions
of
these
indicators so that managers can
construct
a
performance
management
system
that
effectively
meets
internal
management
and
Agency
reporting needs.
CUSTOM INDICATORS
Custom
Indicators
are
performance indicators that
reflect progress within each
unique country or program
context. While they are useful
for managers on the ground,
they
often
cannot
be
aggregated across a number of
programs
like
standard
indicators.
Example:
Progress on a
milestone scale reflecting
legal
reform
and
implementation to ensure
credible elections, as follows:
Draft law is developed in
consultation with nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and
political parties.
Public input is elicited.

PARTICIPATION IS ESSENTIAL
Experience suggests that
participatory approaches are an
essential aspect of developing and
maintaining effective performance
management systems. Collaboration
with development partners
(including host country institutions,
civil society organizations (CSOs),
and implementing partners) as well
as customers has important benefits.
It allows you to draw on the
experience of others, obtains buy-in
to achieving results and meeting
targets, and provides an opportunity
to ensure that systems are as
streamlined and practical as possible.

Draft law is modified based

on feedback.
The secretariat presents
the draft to the Assembly.
The law is passed by the
Assembly.
The
appropriate
government
body
completes internal policies
or
regulations
to
implement the law.
The example above would differ
for each country depending on
its unique process for legal
reform.
STANDARD INDICATORS
Standard indicators are used
primarily for Agency reporting
purposes. Standard indicators
produce data that can be
aggregated
across
many
programs. Optimally, standard
indicators meet both Agency
reporting and on-the-ground
management needs. However,
in
many
cases,
standard
indicators do not substitute for
performance
(or
custom
indicators) because they are

designed to meet different

needs. There is often a tension
between measuring a standard
across many programs and
selecting indicators that best
reflect true program results and
that can be used for internal
management purposes.
Example: Number of Laws or
Amendments
to
Ensure
Credible Elections Adopted
with
USG
Technical
Assistance.
In comparing the standard
indicator above with the
previous example of a custom
indicator, it becomes clear that
the custom indictor is more
likely to be useful as a
management tool, because it
provides greater specificity and
is more sensitive to change.
Standard indicators also tend to
measure change at the output
level, because they are precisely
the types of measures that are,
at face value, more easily
aggregated
across
many
programs, as the following
example demonstrates.
Example:
The number of
people trained in policy and
regulatory practices.
CONTEXTUAL INDICATORS
Contextual indicators are used
to understand the broader
environment
in
which
a
program operates, to track
assumptions, or to examine
externalities that may affect
success, failure, or progress.

INDICATORS AND DATASO

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?
Indicators define the particular
characteristic or dimension that will
be used to measure change. Height
is an example of an indicator.
The data are the actual
measurements or factual information
that result from the indicator. Five
feet seven inches is an example of
data.

They do not represent program

performance,
because
the
indicator measures very highlevel change.
Example:
Score on the
Freedom House Index or
Gross
Domestic
Product
(GDP).
This sort of indicator may be
important
to
track
to
understand the context for
USAID programming (e.g. a
severe drop in GDP is likely to
affect
economic
growth
programming), but represents a
level of change that is outside
the manageable interest of
program managers. In most
cases, it would be difficult to
say that USAID programming
has affected the overall level of
freedom within a country or
GDP (given the size of most
USAID programs in comparison
to the host country economy,
for example).

WHAT ARE USAIDS

CRITERIA FOR
SELECTING
INDICATORS?
USAID policies (ADS 203.3.4.2)
identify seven key criteria to
guide
the
selection
of
performance indicators:

Direct
Objective
Useful for Management
Attributable
Practical
Adequate
Disaggregated, as necessary

These criteria are designed to

assist managers in selecting
optimal indicators. The extent
to
which
performance
indicators meet each of the
criteria must be consistent with
the requirements of good
management.
As managers
consider these criteria, they
should use a healthy measure
of
common
sense
and
reasonableness.
While we
always
want
the
best
indicators, there are inevitably
trade-offs
among
various
criteria. For example, data for
the most direct or objective
indicators of a given result
might be very expensive to
collect or might be available
too infrequently. Table 1
includes a summary checklist
that can be used during the
selection process to assess
these trade-offs.

Two
overarching
factors
determine the extent to which
performance indicators function
as useful tools for managers
and decision-makers:

The degree to which

performance
indicators
accurately
reflect
the
process or phenomenon
they are being used to
measure.
The level of comparability of
performance indicators over
time: that is, can we
measure
results
in
a
consistent and comparable
manner over time?

1. DIRECT
An indicator is direct to the
extent that it clearly measures
the intended result.
This
criterion is, in many ways, the
most important. While this may
appear to be a simple concept,
it is one of the more common
problems
with
indicators.
Indicators should either be
widely accepted for use by
specialists in a subject area,
exhibit readily understandable
face validity (i.e., be intuitively
understandable),
or
be
supported
by
research.
Managers should place greater
confidence in indicators that are
direct. Consider the following
example:
Result:
Increased
Transparency of Key Public
Sector Institutions

Indirect Indicator: Passage

of
the
Freedom
of
Information Act (FOIA)
Direct Indicator: Progress
on
a
milestone
scale
demonstrating
enactment
and enforcement of policies
that require open hearings
The passage of FOIA, while an
important step, does not
actually measure whether a
target institution is more
transparent.
The
better
example outlined above is a
more direct measure.
Level
Another dimension of whether
an indicator is direct relates to
whether it measures the right
level of the objective. A
common problem is that there
is often a mismatch between
the stated result and the
indicator. The indicator should
not measure a higher or lower
level than the result.
For example, if a program
measures
improved
management practices through
the real value of agricultural
production, the indicator is
measuring a higher-level effect
than is stated (see Figure 1).
Understanding levels is rooted
in
understanding
the
development
hypothesis
inherent
in
the
Results
Framework (see TIPS 13:
Building a Results Framework).
Tracking indicators at each level
facilitates better understanding
and analysis of whether the

Figure 1. Levels
RESULT

INDICATOR

Increased
Production

Real value of
agricultural
production.

Improved
Management
Practices

Number and
percent of
farmers using a
new technology.

Improved
Knowledge
and
Awareness

Number and
percent of
farmers who can
identify five out
of eight steps
for
implementing a
new technology.

development hypothesis is
working.
For example, if
farmers are aware of how to
implement a new technology,
but the number or percent that
actually use the technology is
not increasing, there may be
other issues that need to be
addressed.
Perhaps the
technology is not readily
available in the community, or
there is not enough access to
credit. This flags the issue for
managers and provides an
opportunity
to
make
programmatic adjustments.
Proxy Indicators
Proxy indicators are linked to
the result by one or more
assumptions. They are often
used when the most direct
indicator is not practical (e.g.,
data collection is too costly or
the
program
is
being
implemented in a conflict zone).
When proxies are used, the

relationship
between
the
indicator and the result should
be well-understood and clearly
articulated.
The
more
assumptions the indicator is
based upon, the weaker the
indicator.
Consider
the
following examples:
Result: Increased Household
Income
Proxy Indicator:
Dollar
value
of
household
expenditures
The proxy indicator above
makes the assumption that an
increase in income will result in
increased
household
expenditures; this assumption is
well-grounded in research.
Result: Increased Access to
Justice
Proxy Indicator: Number of
new courts opened

data are being collected. In

other words, two people should
be able to collect performance
information for the same
indicator and come to the same
conclusion.
Objectivity is
critical to collecting comparable
data over time, yet it is one of
the most common problems
noted in audits.
As a result,
pay particular attention to the
definition of the indicator to
ensure that each term is clearly
defined, as the following
examples demonstrate:
Poor Indicator: Number of
successful firms
Objective Indicator:
Number of firms with an
annual increase in revenues
of at least 5%
The better example outlines the
exact
criteria
for
how
successful is defined and
ensures that changes in the
data are not attributable to
differences in what is being
counted.

The indicator above is based on

the assumption that physical
access to new courts is the
fundamental
development
problemas
opposed
to
corruption, the costs associated
with using the court system, or
lack of knowledge of how to
obtain legal assistance and/or
use court systems. Proxies can
be used when assumptions are
clear and when there is research
to support that assumption.

Objectivity can be particularly

challenging when constructing
qualitative indicators.
Good
qualitative indicators permit
regular, systematic judgment
about progress and reduce
subjectivity (to the extent
possible).
This means that
there must be clear criteria or
protocols for data collection.

2. OBJECTIVE
An indicator is objective if it is
unambiguous about 1) what is
being measured and 2) what

3. USEFUL FOR
MANAGEMENT
An indicator is useful to the
extent that it provides a

meaningful measure of change

over time for management
decision-making. One aspect of
usefulness is to ensure that the
indicator is measuring the right
change in order to achieve
development results.
For
example, the number of
meetings between Civil Society
Organizations
(CSOs)
and
government is something that
can be counted but does not
necessarily reflect meaningful
change. By selecting indicators,
managers are defining program
success in concrete ways.
Managers
will
focus
on
achieving targets for those
indicators, so it is important to
consider the intended and
unintended incentives
that
performance indicators create.
As a result, the system may
need to be fine-tuned to ensure
that incentives are focused on
achieving true results.
A second dimension is whether
the indictor measures a rate of
change that is useful for
management purposes.
This
means that the indicator is
constructed so that change can
be monitored at a rate that
facilitates management actions
(such as corrections and
improvements).
Consider the
following examples:
Result:
Targeted legal
reform
to
promote
investment
Less Useful for
Management: Number of

laws passed to promote

direct investment.
More Useful for
Management: Progress
toward targeted legal reform
based on the following
stages:
Stage 1. Interested groups
propose that legislation is
needed on issue.
Stage 2. Issue is introduced
in the relevant legislative
committee/executive
ministry.
Stage 3.
Legislation is
drafted
by
relevant
committee
or
executive
ministry.
Stage 4.
Legislation is
debated by the legislature.
Stage 5.
Legislation is
passed by full approval
process needed in legislature.
Stage 6.
Legislation is
approved by the executive
branch (where necessary).
Stage 7.
Implementing
actions are taken.
Stage 8. No immediate need
identified for amendments to
the law.
The less useful example may be
useful for reporting; however, it
is so general that it does not
provide a good way to track
progress
for
performance
management. The process of
passing or implementing laws is
a long-term one, so that over
the course of a year or two the
AO team may only be able to
report that one or two such
laws have passed when, in
reality, a high degree of effort is
6

invested in the process. In this

case, the more useful example
better articulates the important
steps that must occur for a law
to be passed and implemented
and facilitates management
decision-making. If there is a
problem in meeting interim
milestones, then corrections
can be made along the way.
4. ATTRIBUTABLE
An indicator is attributable if it
can be plausibly associated with
USAID interventions.
The
concept
of
plausible
association has been used in
USAID for some time. It does
not mean that X input equals Y
output. Rather, it is based on
the idea that a case can be
made to other development
practitioners that the program
has
materially
affected
identified change.
It is
important to consider the logic
behind what is proposed to
ensure attribution. If a Mission
is piloting a project in three
schools, but claims national
level
impact
in
school
completion, this would not pass
the
common
sense
test.
Consider
the
following
examples:
Result: Improved Budgeting
Capacity
Less Attributable: Budget
allocation for the Ministry of
Justice (MOJ)
More Attributable:
The
extent to which the budget
produced by the MOJ meets

established criteria for good

budgeting
If the program works with the
Ministry of Justice to improve
budgeting
capacity
(by
providing technical assistance
on budget analysis), the quality
of the budget submitted by the
MOJ may improve. However, it
is often difficult to attribute
changes in the overall budget
allocation
to
USAID
interventions, because there are
a number of externalities that
affect a countrys final budget
much like in the U.S.
For
example, in tough economic
times, the budget for all
government institutions may
decrease. A crisis may emerge
that requires the host country
to reallocate resources. The
better example above is more
attributable (and directly linked)
to USAIDs intervention.
5. PRACTICAL
A practical indicator is one for
which data can be collected on a
timely basis and at a reasonable
cost. There are two dimensions
that determine whether an
indicator is practical. The first is
time and the second is cost.
Time
Consider whether resulting data
are available with enough
frequency for management
purposes (i.e., timely enough to
correspond
to
USAID
performance management and
reporting purposes). Second,
examine whether data are
current when available.
If

reliable data are available each

year, but the data are a year
old, then it may be problematic.
Cost
Performance indicators should
provide data to managers at a
cost that is reasonable and
appropriate as compared with
the management utility of the
data. As a very general rule of
thumb, it is suggested that
between 5% and 10% of
program or project resources
be allocated for monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) purposes.
However, it is also important to
consider priorities and program
context.
A program would
likely be willing to invest more
resources in measuring changes
that are central to decisionmaking and less resources in
measuring more tangential
results.
A more mature
program may have to invest
more in demonstrating higherlevel changes or impacts as
compared to a new program.
6. ADEQUATE
Taken as a group, the indicator
(or set of indicators) should be
sufficient to measure the stated
result. In other words, they
should be the minimum
number necessary and costeffective
for
performance
management. The number of
indicators
required
to
adequately measure a result
depends on 1) the complexity
of the result being measured, 2)
the amount of information
needed to make reasonably
confident decisions, and 3) the
7

level of resources available.

Too many indicators create
information
overload
and
become overly burdensome to
maintain. Too few indicators
are also problematic, because
the data may only provide a
partial or misleading picture of
performance. The following
demonstrates
how
one
indicator can be adequate to
measure the stated objective:
Result: Increased Traditional
Exports in Targeted Sectors
Adequate Indicator: Value
of traditional exports in
targeted sectors
In
contrast,
an
objective
focusing on improved maternal
health may require two or three
indicators to be adequate. A
general rule of thumb is to
select between two and three
performance indicators per
result. If many more indicators
are needed to adequately cover
the result, then it may signify
that the objective is not
properly focused.
7. DISAGGREGATED, AS
NECESSARY
The disaggregation of data by
gender, age, location, or some
other dimension is often
important
from
both
a
management and reporting
point of view. Development
programs
often
affect
population
cohorts
or
institutions in different ways.
For example, it might be
important to know to what
extent youth (up to age 25) or

adults (25 and older) are

participating
in
vocational
training, or in which districts
schools
have
improved.
Disaggregated data help track
whether or not specific groups
participate in and benefit from
activities intended to include
them.
In particular, USAID policies
(ADS 203.3.4.3) require that
performance
management
systems and evaluations at the
AO and project or activity levels
include
gender-sensitive
indicators
and
sexdisaggregated data if the
activities or their anticipated
results involve or affect women
and men differently. If so, this
difference
would
be
an
important factor in managing
for sustainable program impact.
Consider the following example:
Result: Increased Access to
Credit
Gender-Sensitive Indicator:
Value of loans disbursed,
disaggregated
by
male/female.

WHAT IS THE
PROCESS FOR
SELECTING
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS?
Selecting
appropriate
and
useful performance indicators
requires
careful
thought,
iterative refining, collaboration,
and consensus-building. The

Build
capacity
for
performance management
among partners, such as
NGOs and partner country
institutions.
Ensure that systems are as
practical and streamlined as
possible.
Often
development partners can
provide excellent insight on
the
practical
issues
associated with indicators
and data collection.

following describes a series of

steps
to
select
optimal
performance
indicators4.
Although presented as discrete
steps, in practice some of these
can be effectively undertaken
simultaneously or in a more
iterative manner. These steps
may be applied as a part of a
larger process to develop a new
PMP, or in part, when teams
have to modify individual
indicators.

STEP 1. DEVELOP A
PARTICIPATORY PROCESS
FOR IDENTIFYING
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The most effective way to
identify indicators is to set up a
process
that
elicits
the
participation and feedback of a
number
of
partners
and
stakeholders.
This allows
managers to:

A common way to begin the

process is to hold working
sessions. Start by reviewing the
Results Framework.
Next,
identify indicators for the
Assistance
Objective,
then
move down to the Intermediate
Results. In some cases, the AO
team establishes the first round
of indicators and then provides
them to other partners for
input.
In other cases, key
partners may be included in the
working sessions.

Draw on different areas of

expertise.
Ensure
that
indicators
measure the right changes
and represent part of a
larger approach to achieve
development impact.
Build
commitment
and
understanding
of
the
linkage between indicators
and
results.
This
will
increase the utility of the
performance management
system
among
key
stakeholders.

This process focuses on presenting

greater detail related specifically to
indicator selection. Refer to TIPS 7:
Preparing a PMP for a broader set of
steps on how to develop a full PMP.
4

It is important to task the group

with identifying the set of
minimal indicators necessary
and sufficient to manage the
program effectively. That is, the
group must go through a
process of prioritization in order
to narrow down the list. While
participatory processes may
take more time at the front end,
they almost always result in
more coherent and effective
system.
STEP 2. CLARIFY THE RESULT
Carefully define the result
desired. Good performance

indicators are based on clearly

articulated
and
focused
objectives. Review the precise
wording and intention of the
objective.
Determine what
exactly is meant by the result.
For example, if the result is
improved
business
environment, what does that
mean? What specific aspects of
the business environment will
be improved? Optimally, the
result should be stated with as
much specificity as possible. If
the result is broad (and the
team doesnt have the latitude
to change the objective), then
the team might further define
its meaning.
Example:
One AO team
further defined their IR,
Improved
Business
Environment, as follows:
Making it easier to do
business in terms of resolving
disputes, obtaining licenses
from the government, and
promoting investment.

An identified set of key

policies are in place to
support investment.
Key
policies
include
laws,
regulations,
and
policies
related to the simplification of
investment
procedures,
bankruptcy, and starting a
business.

As the team gains greater

clarity and consensus on what
results are sought, ideas for
potential indicators begin to
emerge.

Be clear about what type of

change is implied. What is
expected
to
changea
situation, a condition, the level
of knowledge, an attitude, or a
behavior?
For
example,
changing a country's voting
law(s) is very different from
changing citizens' awareness of
their right to vote (which is
different from voting). Each
type of change is measured by
different types of performance
indicators.
Identify more precisely the
specific targets for change. Who
or what are the specific targets
for the change? For example, if
individuals, which individuals?
For an economic growth
program designed to increase
exports, does the program
target all exporters or only
exporters of non-traditional
agricultural products? This is
known as identifying the unit
of analysis for the performance
indicator.
STEP 3: IDENTIFY POSSIBLE
INDICATORS
Usually there are many possible
indicators for a particular result,
but some are more appropriate
and useful than others.
In
selecting indicators, dont settle
too quickly on the first ideas
that come most conveniently or
obviously to mind. Create an
initial list of possible indicators,
using the following approaches:

Conduct a brainstorming
session with colleagues to
draw upon the expertise of

the full Assistance Objective

Team. Ask, how will we
know if the result is
achieved?

Consider other resources.

Many organizations have
databases or indicator lists
for various sectors available
on the internet.

Consult
experts.

Review the PMPs and

indicators
of
previous
programs
or
similar
programs in other Missions.

with

technical

STEP 4. ASSESS THE BEST

CANDIDATE INDICATORS,
USING THE INDICATOR
CRITERIA
Next, from the initial list, select
the
best
candidates
as
indicators.
The seven basic
criteria that can be used to
judge
an
indicators
appropriateness and utility
described in the previous
section are summarized in
Table 1. When assessing and
comparing possible indicators,
it is helpful to use this type of
checklist
to
guide
the
assessment
process.
Remember that there will be
trade-offs between the criteria.
For example, the optimal
indicator may not be the most
cost-effective to select.
STEP 5. SELECT THE BEST
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Select the best indicators to
incorporate in the performance
management system.
They

should be the optimum set of

measures that are useful to
management and can be
obtained at reasonable cost.
Be Strategic and Streamline
Where Possible. In recent years,
there has been a substantial
increase in the number of
indicators used to monitor and
track programs. It is important
to remember that there are
costs, in terms of time and
money, to collect data for each
indicator. AO teams should:

Select indicators based on

strategic thinking about
what must truly be achieved
for program success.

Review
indicators
to
determine whether any final
narrowing can be done. Are
some indicators not useful?
If so, discard them.

Use
participatory
approaches in order to
discuss
and
establish
priorities
that
help
managers focus on key
indicators that are necessary
and sufficient.

Ensure that the rationale for

indicator selection is recorded in
the PMP.
There are rarely
perfect
indicators
in
the
development environmentit
is more often a case of
weighing different criteria and
making the optimal choices for
a particular program.
It is
important to ensure that the
rationale behind these choices
is recorded in the PMP so that
new staff, implementers, or
auditors understand why each
indicator was selected.
STEP 6. FINE TUNE WHEN
NECESSARY
Indicators are part of a larger
system that is ultimately
designed to assist managers in
achieving development impact.
On the one hand, indicators
must remain comparable over
time but, on the other hand,
some refinements will invariably
be needed to ensure the system
is as effective as possible. (Of
course, there is no value in
continuing to collect bad data,
for example.) As a result, these
two issues need to be balanced.
Remember that indicator issues
are often flags for other

10

underlying problems. If a large

number of indicators are
frequently changed, this may
signify a problem with program
management or focus. At the
other end of the continuum, if
no indicators were to change
over a long period of time, it is
possible that a program is not
adapting and evolving as
necessary. In our experience,
some refinements are inevitable
as data are collected and
lessons learned. After some
rounds of data collection are
completed, it is often useful to
discuss indicator issues and
refinements among AO team
members and/or with partners
and
implementers.
In
particular, the period following
portfolio reviews is a good time
to refine PMPs if necessary.

TABLE 1. INDICATOR SELECTION CRITERIA CHECKLIST

Criteria
1. Direct

Definition

Checklist

Direct. The indicator clearly represents the

intended result. An outsider or an expert
in the field would agree that the indicator
is a logical measure for the stated result.
Level. The indicator reflects the right

level; that is, it does not measure a

higher or lower level than the stated
result.
Proxies. The indicator is a proxy

measure. If the indicator is a proxy, note

what assumptions the proxy is based
upon.
2. Objective

The indicator is clear and unambiguous

about what is being measured.

3. Useful for
Management

The indicator is useful for management

decision-making.

4. Attributable

The indicator can be plausibly associated

with USAID interventions.

5. Practical

Time. Data are produced with enough

frequency for management purposes (i.e.
timely enough to correspond to USAID
performance management and reporting
purposes). Data are current when
available.
Cost. Data are worth the cost to USAID
managers.

6. Adequate

The indicators, taken as a group, are

sufficient to measure the stated result. All
major aspects of the result are measured.

7. Disaggregated,
as necessary

The indicators are appropriately

disaggregated by gender, age, location, or
some other dimension that is important for
programming. In particular, gender
disaggregation has been considered as
required (see ADS 203.3.4.3).

11

Comments

For more information:

TIPS publications are available online at [insert website].

Acknowledgements:
Our thanks to those whose experience and insights helped shape this publication, including Gerry Britan
and Subhi Mehdi of USAIDs Office of Management Policy, Budget and Performance (MPBP). This
publication was updated by Michelle Adams-Matson of Management Systems International.
Comments can be directed to:
Gerald Britan, Ph.D.
Tel: (202) 712-1158
gbritan@usaid.gov
Contracted under RAN-M-00-04-00049-A-FY0S-84
Integrated Managing for Results II

12