Pause & Reflect Workshops are a tried and true approach to support learning, adaptive management, and strategic planning. In USAID’s Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) Framework, Pause & Reflect falls as a sub-component under the Adapting sphere with the goal of getting a team to step back and reflect on what they have learned as a result of implementation. In this set of workshop materials, the process is also characterized as Food For Thought (FFT).
More detailed background information can be found at Headlight Consulting Services
27 Issues in this Publication (Showing 21 - 27) Previous
Workshop Agenda Templates
The FFT Workshop is designed to be flexible for your team’s availability. It can be conducted in a full-day in person, 2 half day sessions, or 2-hour sessions over 5 days. It is possible to host a remote workshop, though the preparation will be more time consuming.
Livelihood Coping Strategies Module: Contextualization Recommendations and Lessons Learned
Over the past 10 years, FEWS NET and members of the IPC Partnership have encountered numerous challenges in collecting and analyzing household-level survey data in order to analyze livelihood change for the purpose of conducting IPC and IPC-compatible acute food insecurity analysis.1 Starting in 2021, FEWS NET began testing an approach to modify the collection of the WFP’s Livelihood Coping Strategies module in order to improve the availability of locally relevant livelihood coping data for use in AFI analysis in Somalia. While the specific adaptations for the Somalia context have technical significance, the broader value of this activity was to identify a replicable approach to adaptation that is practical and rigorous in many geographies.
The guidance provided here is based on that pilot work and is intended to do three things. First, it offers survey implementors an explanation of the process FEWS NET undertook to adapt WFP’s Livelihood Coping Strategies (LCS) module, as one way to guide adaptations in other contexts. This guidance does not insist that it provides the only way this module may be adapted successfully for the same purpose. Moreover, this guidance does not insist that WFP or any other implementor must change their approach to the collection of the LCS module if it is useful for their own purposes. Instead, this guidance seeks to offer how the adaptations have been developed based on FEWS NET’s concern that livelihood coping strategies data often fail to be adequately relevant for the local contexts in which they are collected, and seeks to suggest improvements to better achieve that goal. The second purpose of this document is to offer guidance that is both technically rigorous and practical in terms of implementation. In particular, this guidance attempts to balance the need for surveys better suited for the contexts in which they are implemented, with the programmatic reality that survey data may be collected in a large number of areas with their own particular livelihood context. This guidance attempts to avoid over-simplifying livelihoods while avoiding a process so intensive that it becomes infeasible to implement. Finally, this document makes recommendations about (1) specific LCS adaptations to consider in the Somalia context, (2) specific LCS adaptations for which further refinement or testing should be considered, and (3) select issues not addressed in this pilot work that deserve future research.
Matrix Analysis: Integrated Analysis of Survey-Based Indicators for Classification of Acute Food Insecurity
Food security is, by definition, a multifaceted issue. As such, an analysis of food security requires the consideration of a variety of evidence, including several commonly collected, survey-based food security outcome indicators. However, little practical guidance exists on how analysts should draw overarching conclusions from this type of convergence of evidence approach. In the absence of such guidance, analysis can be inconsistent, incomplete, and in the worst case, biased toward individual indicators.
USAID Office of Food for Peace Policy & Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, & Reporting for Development Food Security Activities V2.0
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Office of Food for Peace (FFP) funds development food security activities (DFSA) with an objective to improve and sustain the food and nutrition security of vulnerable populations. USAID applies the best available evidence to document activity effectiveness and improve program design and implementation.
FFP has an obligation to the federal government and the American people to ensure that resources are used efficiently to achieve the best possible food security outcomes and that, in the process, food assistance actors learn from experience how to improve activity design and implementation. This FFP Policy and Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting for Development Food Security Activities describes key monitoring, evaluation, and reporting responsibilities of FFP development activity applicants and partners. This guidance has been updated to reflect FFP’s current multi-year food security activities and the newly adopted approach to DFSA design and implementation called “Refine and Implement” (R&I). This approach enables implementing partners and USAID to focus on formative research and/or analysis in the first phase to further refine the technical approach(es) that will be carried out in the second phase of the activity life cycle. Given that many FFP development activities are now using the R&I approach, this guidance is updated to include guidance for R&I activities.
Chapter 1 provides an overview of FFP M&E requirements and timelines for submission of the M&E Plan components. Chapter 2 outlines requirements for the Theory of Change (TOC), Logical Framework (LogFrame), Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT), Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS), and Qualitative Inquiry Planning Sheets (QuIPS). Guidance on monitoring and M&E Staffing and Capacity Development Strategy is presented in Chapter 3, and guidance for evaluation plans is presented in Chapter 4.
Annex 1 provides an overview of the baseline study; this annex serves to inform partners about the objectives and methodology of the baseline. Annex II provides guidance on midterm evaluations; this annex is intended for activity implementing partners and research/evaluation partners who will be leading or participating in midterm evaluations. Annex III provides an overview of the interim/final evaluation; this annex serves to inform partners about the objectives and methodology of the interim/final evaluation. Annex IV provides technical guidance for partners on management information system (MIS) principles. Annex V is a template for Qualitative Inquiry Planning Sheets (QuIPS), which should be used by partners to outline performance monitoring and special studies using qualitative methods and tools. Applicants and partners are encouraged to use this and other templates included in this guidance document when developing their M&E Plans, but may use other formats if the required information is included.
All changes from the December 2016 guidance are highlighted in yellow. To improve readability, only the titles of new or substantially revised sections or subsections are highlighted. Additionally, while FFP now uses the term direct activity “participant” for development activities (rather than “beneficiary”) this change in terminology is not highlighted in the text that follows to improve readability.
Theory of Change Development: A Step-by-Step Process for Developing of Strengthening Theories of Change
This workbook was originally created for the USAID/Vietnam theory of change clinics for implementing partners, and has been refined through several rounds of use and feedback from USAID/Vietnam and partners. It can be used by design and start-up teams to develop or strengthen their theories of change with local stakeholders.
This theory of change process helps users determine the four key elements of a strong theory of change:
- Outcomes: What is the change we are trying to achieve?
- Entry points: Where is there momentum to create that change?
- Interventions: How will we achieve the change?
