ADS Chapter 201

Program Cycle Operational Policy

Partial Revision Date: 03/10/2020

Responsible Office: PPL
File Name: 201_031020
 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Functional Series 200 – Programming Policy
ADS 201 – Program Cycle Operational Policy
POC for ADS 201: Carissa Page, [email protected]

Table of Contents

201.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................... 5

201.2 PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................... 5

201.3 POLICY DIRECTIVES AND REQUIRED PROCEDURES .........................10

201.3.1 The Program Cycle ................................................................................ 10

201.3.1.1 Relationship to Development Policy ..............................................................11
201.3.1.2 Principles of the Program Cycle ....................................................................11
201.3.1.3 Components of the Program Cycle ...............................................................13
201.3.1.4 Management and Implementation of the Program Cycle ............................16
201.3.1.5 Waivers and Exemptions ................................................................................16
201.3.1.6 Contingency Operations .................................................................................17
201.3.1.7 Key Considerations for Programming in Politically Sensitive Countries ....17
201.3.1.8 Legal Requirements on the Use of Funds ....................................................18

201.3.2 Strategic Planning and Implementation............................................... 18

201.3.2.1 Functions of the CDCS ...................................................................................19
201.3.2.2 The Role of Missions and Washington OUs in Developing CDCSs ...........20
201.3.2.3 Applicability of CDCS Guidance ....................................................................23
201.3.2.4 CDCS Exemptions ..........................................................................................23
201.3.2.5 CDCS Waivers.................................................................................................25
201.3.2.6 Alignment of CDCSs with Agency and Inter-Agency Strategies/Policies ..25
201.3.2.7 Alignment of CDCSs with Projects and Activities ........................................27
201.3.2.8 Self-Reliance in the CDCS .............................................................................28
201.3.2.9 Preparation for the CDCS Process................................................................31
201.3.2.10 Overview of the CDCS Process .....................................................................31
201.3.2.11 Overview of the Content of a CDCS ..............................................................33
201.3.2.12 The Results Framework and Associated Development Hypotheses .........35
201.3.2.13 Overview of Implementing a CDCS ...............................................................39
201.3.2.14 Performance Management Plan (PMP) ........................................................41
201.3.2.15 Monitoring and Evaluation During Implementation ......................................45
201.3.2.16 Learning and Adaptive Management During Implementation .....................46
201.3.2.17 Obligation by Development Objective Agreements (DOAGs) ....................48
201.3.2.18 Expiration and Extension of the CDCS .........................................................49
201.3.2.19 Amending and Updating the CDCS ...............................................................50
201.3.2.20 Closing out a CDCS ........................................................................................50

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 2

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

201.3.3 Design and Implementation of Projects............................................... 51

201.3.3.1 Roles of Missions and Washington OUs in the Design and Implementation
of Projects ........................................................................................................51
201.3.3.2 Applicability of Guidance for Project Design .................................................54
201.3.3.3 Exemptions for Missions .................................................................................54
201.3.3.4 Waivers for Missions .......................................................................................55
201.3.3.5 Guidance for Washington OUs that Expend Program Funds .....................56
201.3.3.6 Mission Concurrence for Washington- or Regional Mission/Platform
Funded Activities .............................................................................................56
201.3.3.7 Project-Design Considerations ......................................................................56
201.3.3.8 Project-Design Process ..................................................................................58
201.3.3.10 Project-Design Team ......................................................................................59
201.3.3.11 Preparing for the Project-Design Process ....................................................60
201.3.3.12 Phase One: Project-Design Planning...........................................................60
201.3.3.13 Phase Two: Project Design ...........................................................................64
201.3.3.14 Project Implementation ...................................................................................75
201.3.3.15 Expirations and Extensions ............................................................................77
201.3.3.16 Amending and Updating the [PAD]................................................................77
201.3.3.17 Close Out .........................................................................................................79

201.3.4 Activity Design and Implementation .........................................................79

201.3.4.1 Mission and Washington Operating Unit Roles in Activity Design and
Implementation ................................................................................................80
201.3.4.2 Applicability of Guidance for Activity Design ................................................83
201.3.4.3 Activity Design Considerations ......................................................................84
201.3.4.4 Approval for the Activity Design Process ......................................................87
201.3.4.5 Acquisition and Assistance Design Process.................................................88
201.3.4.6 Partner Country Government Agreement Design ........................................95
201.3.4.7 Design Considerations for Other Mechanisms .............................................98
201.3.4.8 Implementation of Activities ..........................................................................100
201.3.4.9 Roles in Activity Implementation ..................................................................100
201.3.4.10 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning ..........................................................101
201.3.4.11 Resource Management During Implementation .........................................105
201.3.4.12 Activity Modifications and Amendments .....................................................107
201.3.4.13 Alignment of Activities with Strategies and Projects ..................................108
201.3.4.14 Close Out .......................................................................................................108

201.3.5 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning ................................................ 109

201.3.5.1 Applicability of Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning .........109
201.3.5.2 Monitoring ......................................................................................................110
201.3.5.3 Principles of Monitoring ................................................................................111
201.3.5.4 Mission and Washington Operating Unit Roles for Monitoring .................111
201.3.5.5 Types of Program Monitoring .......................................................................112
201.3.5.6 Standards and Criteria for Monitoring and Reporting ................................113

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 3

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
201.3.5.7 Monitoring Indicators .....................................................................................114
201.3.5.8 Monitoring Data Quality ................................................................................118
201.3.5.9 Evaluation ......................................................................................................119
201.3.5.10 Principles of Evaluation ................................................................................120
201.3.5.11 Missions and Washington Operating Unit Roles for Evaluation ...............120
201.3.5.12 Impact and Performance Evaluations .........................................................121
201.3.5.13 Evaluation Requirements .............................................................................122
201.3.5.14 Evaluation Independence .............................................................................123
201.3.5.15 Planning Evaluations ....................................................................................124
201.3.5.16 Evaluation Implementation ...........................................................................126
201.3.5.17 Evaluation Reports ........................................................................................127
201.3.5.18 Evaluation Utilization .....................................................................................127
201.3.5.19 Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting ........................................................128
201.3.5.20 Principles for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting ................................129
201.3.5.21 Mission Roles for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting .........................130
201.3.5.22 Planning for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting ..................................130
201.3.5.23 Using Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting Approaches .......................131
201.3.5.24 Accessibility of Program Cycle Documentation ..........................................132

201.4 MANDATORY REFERENCES ....................................................................132

201.4.1 External Mandatory References ......................................................... 132

201.4.2 Internal Mandatory References .......................................................... 134

201.5 ADDITIONAL HELP .....................................................................................137

201.6 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................139

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 4

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
201.1 OVERVIEW
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The Program Cycle is USAID’s operational model for planning, delivering, assessing,
and adapting development programming in a given region or country to advance U.S.
foreign policy. It encompasses guidance and procedures for:

(1) Making strategic decisions at the regional or country level about programmatic
areas of focus and associated resources;

(2) Designing projects and supportive activities to implement strategic plans; and

(3) Learning from performance monitoring, evaluations, and other relevant sources
of information to make course corrections as needed and inform future
programming.

Program Cycle implementation also facilitates USAID’s compliance with many

requirements of the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act
(GPRAMA).

201.2 PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

a. The Administrator (A/AID) formulates and executes U.S. foreign assistance

policies and programs subject to the foreign policy guidance of the President, the
Secretary of State, and the National Security Council. Under the direct authority and
foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State, A/AID serves as a principal advisor to
the President and Secretary of State regarding international development and
humanitarian assistance matters. He/she administers appropriations made available
under the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as amended, and supervises and
directs overall Agency activities in the United States and abroad.

b. The Bureau for Foreign Assistance, Department of State (State/F) serves as

the U.S. Government’s foreign assistance coordination hub, leading the coordination of
U.S. foreign assistance. It advances U.S. national security and development objectives
by strategically managing State and USAID foreign assistance resources; leading
coordinating policy, planning, and performance management efforts; promoting
evidence-informed decision-making; and directing State and USAID foreign assistance
resources.

c. Operating Units (OUs) implement foreign assistance programs with funding

from relevant foreign assistance accounts. OUs include USAID Missions and
USAID/Washington (USAID/W) Bureaus and Independent Offices (B/IOs) that expend
program funds to implement activities to achieve foreign development objectives.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 5

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
d. Bilateral Country Missions serve as the focal point for USAID programming in
the countries where they operate. In collaboration with USAID Regional and Pillar
Bureaus and the Department of State, USAID Missions are responsible for the design
and management of development programs. This includes monitoring program and
financial performance and routinely reporting on results.

● Mission Program Offices play a leadership role in Program Cycle implementation

under the direction of the Mission Director. This includes facilitating cross-team
collaboration to ensure that multiple perspectives are brought to the planning and
design process, and that all relevant actors fulfill their implementation,
management, and reporting responsibilities.

● Mission Technical Offices provide technical leadership in Program Cycle

implementation under the direction of the Mission Director.

e. Regional Missions/Regional Platforms manage regional programs and, in

some instances, provide USAID Missions with administrative support services—such as
legal, financial management, executive management, and procurement—as well as
limited, specialized technical assistance and/or program assistance when client
Missions have limited full-time equivalent staff capacity.

f. The Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning (PPL) is responsible for ADS
Chapters 200 and 201 and, as needed, provides interpretation of the language in these
chapters in collaboration with the Office of the General Counsel.

g. The Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, Office of the Assistant to the
Administrator (PPL/AtA) provides internal and external leadership on USAID’s
development Mission by shaping Agency and United States Government (USG)
development policy and promoting good practice.

h. The Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, Office of Policy (PPL/P)

● Leads the Agency in a collaborative process of articulating policy and producing

policy documents in order to guide programming decisions,

● Informs external audiences about Agency direction,

● Inserts development perspectives in foreign and national security policy

formulation, and

● Represents USAID within the development community.

i. The Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, Office of Strategic and
Program Planning (PPL/SPP) establishes and oversees the implementation of policies

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 6

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
and procedures for USAID Missions and, as relevant, Washington OUs, to design,
implement, assess, and adjust country strategies, projects, and activities based on the
best available information to achieve and sustain results. SPP builds Agency capacity
in strategic planning, project and activity design, and implementation through the
provision of targeted training, tools, and technical assistance and the facilitation of peer-
to-peer learning, in coordination with the Office of Human Capital and Talent
Management and other Agency stakeholders.

j. The Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, Office of Learning,

Evaluation, and Research (PPL/LER) catalyzes USAID's transformation into an
effective learning organization by strengthening the integration of monitoring,
evaluation, and learning throughout the Program Cycle. LER supports the
implementation of relevant agency policies and builds the Agency’s capacity in
monitoring, evaluation, and learning by providing training and technical assistance,
developing policy and guidance, and leading communities of practice. LER also
provides a focal point for partnership on these topics, including with implementing
partners, domestic and international agencies and donors, non-governmental
organizations, foundations, academic institutions, multilateral organizations, and local
governments or organizations in the countries where USAID works.

k. The Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning, Office of Donor

Engagement (PPL/DE) leads the Agency efforts in mobilizing collective action that
promotes U.S. Government (USG) foreign assistance priorities in the international
arena. PPL/DE advocates and builds key relationships by strategically engaging in
major multilateral, bilateral, and international fora.

l. Regional Bureaus serve as the main link between Washington OUs and the
field. They are the primary point of contact with the State/F, other USG agencies,
international donors, and multilateral organizations regarding foreign assistance policy,
budget, and programmatic issues pertaining to the region. Regional Bureaus are
responsible for influencing/providing input on foreign assistance policy and budget
decisions based on regional and country expertise and analyses. They work in tandem
with State/F, the relevant State Regional Bureau, the Office of Budget and Resource
Management, and USAID Missions to build, justify, and implement foreign assistance
budgets. As part of this process, Regional Bureaus articulate foreign assistance
programmatic and funding priorities for countries and cross-border programs in the
region and represent USAID Missions’ perspectives on budget priorities. Regional
Bureaus provide technical guidance and support for their respective field Missions in
strategic planning, project and activity design; and monitoring, evaluation, and learning.
This includes engaging with PPL and Pillar Bureaus to ensure consistent application of
the Program Cycle and to coordinate the provision of technical assistance. Regional
Bureaus may also manage central mechanisms to support Program Cycle
implementation.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 7

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
m. Pillar Bureaus provide technical leadership for the Agency. They disseminate
knowledge on recent advances and innovations in their respective technical fields to
help the Agency make evidence-based and strategic choices; this includes maintaining
strategic relationships with public and private actors in their areas of technical expertise.
Pillar Bureaus play an important role in promoting new approaches, adaptations, and
country-specific approaches based on learning from research and implementation
experience. Pillar Bureaus provide technical guidance and support for strategic
planning, project and activity design; and monitoring, evaluation, and learning. This
encompasses the provision of field support for research, data collection for routine
assessments, and monitoring. Pillar Bureaus also manage central mechanisms that
support the design, implementation, and evaluation of field projects and activities, as
well as mechanisms that support the implementation of sector strategies and the
achievement of sector goals.

n. The Bureau for Management (M) provides centralized management support

services for the Agency ensures that core systems related to operational expense
budgets, financial accounting and management, acquisition and assistance (A&A), and
information management are adequately integrated and support programming
processes. The Assistant Administrator of the M Bureau represents the Agency before
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), other Federal agencies, Congress, and
the public on matters pertaining to program and management operations.

o. The Bureau for Management, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (M/CFO)
ensures the compilation of financial data to enable effective performance measurement
and management decision-making; and provides leadership and direction in financial
management and plays specific roles in the analysis, planning, and design of
government-to-government (G2G) programs (see ADS 220, Use and Strengthening of
Reliable Partner Government Systems for Implementation of Direct Assistance).

p. The Bureau for Management, Office of the Chief Information Officer (M/CIO)
offers advice on strategies to leverage information technology for use in development
programming. M/CIO provides oversight and approves all information technology
investments within Agency operations. For more information, see ADS 509,
Management and Oversight of Agency Information Technology. For roles and
responsibilities related to data management and USAID’s open data policy, see ADS
579, USAID Development Data.

q. The Bureau for Management, Office of Management Policy, Budget and

Performance (M/MPBP) serves as the central unit for the planning and implementation
of the Agency’s Operating Expense (OE) budget, the formulation of management policy,
the monitoring and evaluation of management performance, and administrative support
services.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 8

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
r. The Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Overseas
Management Division (M/MS/OMD) supports the management functions that underpin
USAID’s field offices and are generally managed by Backstop 03, Executive Officers.

s. The Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition and Assistance (M/OAA)

provides primary leadership in communicating and advising how the Agency can
leverage its broad range of acquisition and assistance (A&A) instruments to achieve
Program Cycle outcomes. M/OAA also develops, issues, and maintains the Agency’s
A&A regulations, policies, procedures, and standards, in accordance with statutory and
Federal regulations and Agency delegations and requirements and administers the
Agency’s A&A Plan.

t. The Office of Budget and Resource Management (BRM) serves as USAID's

central, corporate-level budget office. BRM guides the Agency's allocation of program
funds in accordance with Agency-wide, sector specific, and/or Mission strategic plan
priorities and facilitates the timely allotment and programming of program funds for
implementation. BRM leads Agency-wide resource planning and program budget
processes, including the development of Country Development Cooperation Strategies
(CDCSs), the Foreign-Assistance Operational Plans (OPs), Bureau and Mission
Resource Requests (BRR/MRRs), the preparation of the annual funding report required
under Section 653(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended, and
other critical steps in the budget process.

u. The Office of the General Counsel (GC) and Resident Legal Officers (RLOs)
provide legal counsel and advice on a broad range of matters related to project planning
and implementation, including those relating to statutory requirements, source and
nationality and other types of waivers, and use of partner country systems. GC and
RLOs:

● Guide planning and design teams to ensure compliance with relevant policies
and statutes;

● Guide the process of negotiating accords with other development actors; and

● Review and provide feedback on all documentation for agreements signed by the
Agency Administrator, Assistant Administrators, Mission Directors, and others
authorized to sign on their behalf.

v. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reviews the integrity of operations
for USAID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the African Development Foundation,
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Inter-American Foundation
through audits, investigations, and inspections. OIG conducts and supervises audits
and investigations of these organizations’ programs and operations and recommends
policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and to prevent and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 9

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
detect fraud and abuse. OIG provides a means for keeping the head of the respective
organization and Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies
relating to the administration of the organization's activities and the necessity for and
progress of corrective action.

w. The Office of Human Capital and Talent Management (HCTM) provides

leadership and direction in defining and managing USAID workforce planning
processes, which includes recruiting staff that directly and indirectly support
implementation of the Program Cycle. In coordination with PPL, HCTM designs and
implements training to build the knowledge and skills of Agency staff to implement the
Program Cycle.

x. The U.S. Global Development Lab supports the Agency in using science,
technology, innovation and partnerships to achieve the development results identified in
country or sector strategies. The Lab also generates new ideas and additional funding
from outside sources to implement new approaches, often in collaboration with other
development actors.

201.3 POLICY DIRECTIVES AND REQUIRED PROCEDURES

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

This ADS chapter provides the policies, statutory requirements, and procedures for
USAID’s Program Cycle. It applies in its entirety to all field-based OUs, including
Missions, Country Offices, and regional platforms, hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Missions.” The parts of this chapter that apply to Washington-based OUs are noted
explicitly in each section. However, Washington-based OUs should find that much of the
guidance and many of the good practices in the chapter are relevant, and they should
adopt them whenever feasible. For additional guidance, see Application of ADS 201
to Washington Operating Units.

The mandatory procedures in this chapter are identified by the words “must” or
“required.” Non-mandatory procedures represent best practices. These procedures are
identified by the words “should,” “recommend,” “may,” or other clear designation.
USAID Missions do not have to document deviations from non-mandatory procedures;
however, they might wish to do so for purposes of Agency learning and to ensure
continuity during staff transitions.

Mandatory References contain both mandatory and non-mandatory procedures and

important details that do not appear in the core chapter. If a reference includes any
mandatory language, it must be termed a “Mandatory Reference.” References that do
not include mandatory language, but rather provide additional information about a given
topic, are termed “Additional Help.”

201.3.1 The Program Cycle

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 10

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

The Program Cycle is USAID’s operational model for planning, delivering, assessing,
and adapting development programming in a given region or country to advance U.S.
foreign and economic policy and American values.

201.3.1.1 Relationship to Development Policy

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The Program Cycle provides the means through which USAID operationalizes
development policy, as described in ADS 200, Development Policy.

Internal USAID policies, strategies, and vision papers articulate the Agency’s
approaches to complex development challenges. The Agency’s development policy is
grounded in broad U.S. Government foreign-policy, economic, and development
priorities, as well as American values, and reflects commitments to international
accords. It comprises required and recommended practices and approaches for
international development assistance broadly, and in specific fields. The Agency’s
policies, strategies, and vision papers aim to ensure policy coherence, quality, and
technical rigor to support evidence-based decision-making and enhance the
measurable impact of all USAID’s development programs. A list of the Agency’s current
policies, strategies, and vision papers appears in the Policy Registry database.

The Program Cycle allows the Agency to advance U.S. foreign-policy, economic, and
development priorities, and American values, in the countries and regions where USAID
works, and tailor them to the local country context to produce quantifiable, sustainable
results. The Administrator’s Policy Directive on Agency-Wide Policy and Strategy
Implementation provides guidance to Missions on how to align with, and propose
exceptions to, the Agency’s policies and strategies.

201.3.1.2 Principles of the Program Cycle

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

To end the need for foreign assistance, USAID focuses on building self-reliance in its
partner countries. USAID defines “self-reliance” as the capacity to plan, finance, and
implement solutions to local development challenges, as well as the commitment to see
these solutions through effectively, inclusively, and with accountability. As commitment
and capacity in a country strengthens, USAID’s relationship and partnership with the
government, civil society, and the private sector in that country should also evolve to
ensure the programs the Agency implements best support the Journey to Self-Reliance.
USAID fosters capacity and commitment in partner countries across all levels—
individuals, communities, companies, and governing institutions—so partners eventually
can solve their own development challenges without USAID’s assistance. (See the
USAID Policy Framework for more details.)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 11

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
USAID uses the Program Cycle to ensure its policies, strategies, allocations of human
and financial resources, budget requests, and award-management practices support
governments, civil society, and the private sector in each country on their Journey to
Self-Reliance. The Program Cycle translates this vision into action, starting with the
process for developing CDCSs, and continuing with the design of projects and activities
and their subsequent implementation. Threaded throughout is a systematic focus on
data, monitoring, evaluation, collaborating, learning, and adapting (CLA) to assess the
progress in implementation, make decisions, and inform course-corrections as needed
(including the adjustment of non-performing awards).

The following principles serve as the foundation for the successful implementation of the
Program Cycle:

A. Apply Analytic Rigor to Support Evidence-Based Decision-Making

USAID’s decisions about where and how to invest foreign-assistance resources

must depend on analyses and conclusions supported by evidence. “Analysis”
refers to formal assessments, evaluations, and studies conducted by USAID or
other development actors. It also includes structured thinking based on
experiences, insights, and internalized knowledge, as well as consultations with
key stakeholders, including beneficiaries. The level of rigor and depth of analysis
will depend on the information needed at key decision points, as well as the
availability of resources, both financial and human, to conduct new analysis,
recognizing it is not always possible to have complete or perfect information.
Adequate planning and budgeting can help to ensure the timeliness and
relevance of information. In addition to mandatory analyses required at relevant
phases of the Program Cycle, a range of analytic tools are available to support
decision-making in a given country context.

B. Manage Adaptively through Continuous Learning

Facilitating international development inherently requires that USAID work in

countries with evolving political and economic contexts. USAID is increasingly
working in countries that are unstable or in transition. Yet even in the most-
stable environments it is difficult to predict reliably how events or circumstances
will evolve and impact programs. Therefore, USAID must be able to readily adapt
programs in response to changes in context and new information. To do this, the
Agency must create an enabling environment that encourages the design of
more flexible programs, promotes intentional learning, minimizes the obstacles to
and modifying programs, and creates incentives for learning and managing
adaptively. Learning can take place through a range of processes and use a
variety of sources, such as monitoring data, evaluation findings, research
findings, analyses, lessons from implementation, and observation.

C. Promote Sustainability through Local Implementation and Financing

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 12

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

The sustainability and long-term success of development assistance ultimately

requires local financing and the strengthening of local institutions to produce
measurable outcomes at the regional, national, sub-national, or community
levels, as appropriate. USAID should seek out and respond to, the priorities and
perspectives of local stakeholders, including partner country governments,
beneficiaries, civil society (including faith-based organizations), the private
sector, and academia. These processes should be inclusive of the poorest,
most-marginalized populations, religious and ethnic minorities, and women and
girls. USAID’s assistance should align with the priorities of local actors; leverage
local resources; and increase local implementation to sustain results over time.

D. Use a Range of Approaches to Achieve Results

The Program Cycle provides the framework for USAID to consider a range of
approaches to address specific development challenges in a given country
context. The development community has experimented with a range of
approaches in recent years, including solutions driven by science, technology,
innovation, and private capital. In addition, new partnerships and commitments
forged to work in tandem with developing-country governments, the private
sector, universities, civil society, faith-based organizations, and other donors
provide new tactics for planning, achieving, and measuring development
outcomes. It is important to consider a range of options to select the most-
appropriate means for achieving the desired results, matched to the context,
needs, and resources available to carry them out.

201.3.1.3 Components of the Program Cycle

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The diagram below graphically represents the Program Cycle and illustrates the
interconnected and mutually reinforcing nature of its individual components. The
Program Cycle systemically links all aspects of development programming and
integrates them through learning and adapting. The Program Cycle is neither linear nor
sequential; Missions are often engaged in the various components simultaneously.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 13

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

A. Country and Regional Strategic Planning

Strategic planning is the process through which USAID determines the best
strategic approach in a given country or region based on the U.S. Government’s
foreign-policy and economic priorities, individual country or regional priorities,
and USAID’s comparative advantage and available foreign-assistance resources,
among other factors. The CDCS defines the highest-order Goal and
Development Objectives (DOs) that each Mission, in collaboration with its
development partners, will work to address during the strategy’s period. The
CDCS also affords an important opportunity for Washington OUs to align their
efforts closely with each Mission’s objectives, wherever possible (see ADS
201man). The CDCS describes the Mission’s theory of change or “development
hypothesis” regarding how, why, and under what conditions the Mission
believes—based on the given parameters and best available information—that it
will be successful in advancing the Journey to Self-Reliance. At the center of the
CDCS is a Results Framework, a type of logic model that provides a summary of
the development hypothesis and illustrates the key, measurable results the
Mission expects to achieve.

B. The Design and Implementation of Projects

The design of projects is the process by which USAID defines how it will achieve
a result or set of results in a CDCS or other strategic framework to ensure

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 14

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
investments advance the Journey to Self-Reliance. Projects should support the
implementation of the CDCS. Informed by evidence, including from the
monitoring and evaluation of previous and current projects and analyses of the
context, the design of projects organizes multiple activities around a common
purpose. During the implementation of projects, USAID staff work collaboratively
alongside implementing partners to ensure that activities, taken together, achieve
the intended measurable outcomes and continuously adapt them through
learning.

C. The Design and Implementation of Activities

The design of activities is the process by which USAID defines how to implement
an investment that contributes to a specific purpose. Activities planned during
the design of projects should reflect choices made to build local capacity and
commitment toward the Journey to Self-Reliance. “Activities” typically refer to a
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement with an implementing partner, another
U.S. Government Department or Agency, or with a partner-country government.
An activity could also be an intervention undertaken directly by USAID staff, such
as for policy dialogues or capacity-development. During the implementation of
activities, USAID staff provide technical direction for, and administrative oversight
of, legal agreements and, in some cases, carry out activities directly. They also
monitor, evaluate, and learn from implementation to track progress, make
decisions, and inform course-corrections as needed.

D. Monitoring

Monitoring is the ongoing and systematic tracking of information relevant to

USAID strategies, projects, and activities. Information derived from monitoring
serves two important functions.

(1) Monitoring data gathered during implementation support adaptive

management. When relevant and high-quality monitoring data are
available to aid in analysis, complement and reinforce evaluation, and
inform decisions during implementation, USAID is better able to adapt in a
timely way.

(2) Monitoring data are the backbone of the accountability structure at USAID.
Monitoring data provide the public with information on the progress USAID
is making, and provide Washington and external stakeholders (through the
Performance Plan and Report and other reporting processes) with
information needed to inform decision-making.

E. Evaluation

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 15

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of information about
strategies, projects, and activities as a basis for judgements to improve or inform
decisions about programming. Evaluation also has a two-fold purpose: ensuring
accountability to stakeholders and learning to improve development outcomes.
Timely and high-quality evaluation supports adaptive management and
complements programmatic monitoring.

F. Learning and Adapting

Strategic collaboration among a wide range of internal and external stakeholders,

continuous learning, and adaptive management connect all components of the
Program Cycle. Sources for learning include data from monitoring, portfolio
reviews, research findings, evaluations, analyses, knowledge gained from
experience, and other sources. These sources may be used to develop plans,
implement projects, manage adaptively, and contribute to USAID’s knowledge
base to improve measurable development outcomes. This helps ensure that
USAID coordinates our investments with other development actors, grounded in
evidence, and adjusts them as necessary to remain relevant throughout
implementation.

G. Budgets and Resources

Budgets are key inputs to the Program Cycle. Budgetary projections, both
program-wide and sector-specific, help inform the strategic-planning process,
including decisions about priorities and opportunities. When developing the
CDCS, Missions should also consider centrally managed funds by Washington
OUs, including humanitarian assistance and transition initiatives, and non-
appropriated resources, including leveraged funding, other donor assistance, and
in-kind contributions.

201.3.1.4 Management and Implementation of the Program Cycle

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

Missions must define clear responsibilities and delegations of authority to support the
implementation of the Program Cycle. Structure and organization at individual Missions
will vary depending on the overall size and complexity of their programs, their staffing
patterns, and country context, and could evolve over time. Missions should consider
how best to streamline internal processes and procedures and strengthen their
structure, operations, and staff competencies while leveraging existing capacity,
particularly that of Foreign Service National (FSN) staff.

201.3.1.5 Waivers and Exemptions

Effective Date: 06/11/2019

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 16

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Information on waivers and exemptions related to specific Program Cycle policies and
procedures, such as waivers and exemptions for developing a CDCS or project design,
appears in the relevant sections of this chapter.

201.3.1.6 Contingency Operations

Effective Date: 06/11/2019

Missions operating in areas of overseas contingency operations (generally defined with

reference to Section 101(a)(13) of Title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), e.g.,
when there is armed conflict that involves American armed forces) are subject to a
number of special requirements. These requirements focus on three areas:
assessments of necessity and sustainability with regard to certain capital-assistance
projects; requirements on the funding and use of private security contractors; and
special contract risk-assessments and risk-mitigation plans. For a comprehensive
discussion of these requirements and when they are applicable, see ADS 201maj,
Contingency Operations.

201.3.1.7 Key Considerations for Programming in Politically Sensitive

Countries
Effective Date: 12/23/2019

OUs that manage non-humanitarian programming in designated “politically sensitive”

countries must assess such programming against a set of “Key Considerations” to
ensure the appropriate management of the unique risks inherent to these contexts.
These reviews of “Key Considerations” must take place, at minimum, during the design
of projects or activities, and during implementation, as appropriate. In addition, these
reviews must take place under the guidance and oversight of the cognizant Regional
Bureau.

Assistant Administrators (AAs) in the Regional Bureau are responsible for determining
which countries within their respective region are “politically sensitive countries” that
merit a review of “Key Considerations.” USAID defines a “politically sensitive country”
as a country in which the government:

● Is politically repressive; and

● Has explicitly rejected USAID assistance, or has such an adverse relationship

with the United States that the Agency cannot work or cooperate with the
government on development assistance.

Politically sensitive countries might or might not be countries in which USAID has U.S.
direct-hire field presence. However, the risk profile is typically heightened in non-
presence countries.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 17

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
201.3.1.8 Legal Requirements on the Use of Funds
Effective Date: 12/23/2019

USAID funds are subject to numerous legal requirements the Agency must meet prior to
obligation and/or expenditure. These legal requirements apply to both Missions and
Washington OUs. Although USAID often refers to these legal obligations as “pre-
obligation requirements,” the Agency also may address some of them at the time it sub-
obligates funds from a Development Objective Agreement (DOAG). (See ADS
201.3.2.17 and ADS 350 for additional information on DOAGs).

Missions and Washington OUs should work with their RLO or point-of-contact (POC) in
GC on questions related to legal requirements, and at what stage in planning and
implementation they should address them. Missions and Washington OUs must
document the satisfaction of legal requirements (or pre-obligation and/or pre-sub-
obligation requirements) for all activities. For additional information, see ADS 201mad,
Legal Requirements Summary Checklist.

201.3.2 Strategic Planning and Implementation

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

Strategic planning is the process by which USAID determines the best strategic
approach to foster or accelerate lasting gains along the Journey to Self-Reliance in a
given country or region. (See ADS 201.3.1 on USAID’s self-reliance vision and ADS
201.3.2.8 on self-reliance in the CDCS.) This process requires that USAID consider
trade-offs and make difficult choices based on a rigorous analysis of national or regional
needs and priorities, U.S. Government policy imperatives, foreign-assistance resources,
and USAID’s comparative advantage, all framed around the Self-Reliance Country
Roadmap (hereafter referred to as the “Country Roadmap”), USAID’s primary self-
reliance tool. Strategic planning is essential in all the contexts in which USAID works—
from relatively stable countries to those that are constantly in flux. A thoughtful,
evidence-based approach to prioritizing and utilizing available resources, including a
Mission’s funding (from all sources), staff, and convening power, is necessary for
successful development in any context.

The strategic-planning process culminates in a CDCS. The process of developing a

CDCS is just as important as the product itself. Internally, the process provides an
opportunity for staff from Missions and Washington OUs to consider current resource
and policy parameters; review lessons from data from monitoring and evaluation,
implementation experience, site visits, and other sources of evidence; explore different
hypotheses about how change is expected to unfold; and promote shared buy-in around
the final approach. Externally, the process creates a forum for Missions to understand
the views and perspectives of local partners and others in the development community,
explore ways in which to complement and/or leverage efforts, and build self-reliance by
facilitating greater financing and stewardship of, and commitment to, the development
process.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 18

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

The CDCS defines the highest-order Goals and Development Objectives (DOs) that the
Mission, in collaboration with its development partners, will address during the strategy
period. The Goals and DOs must reflect principles of the Journey to Self-Reliance and
clearly reflect the priorities of the Administration and USAID. It also describes the
Mission’s theory of change or “development hypothesis” regarding how and why, and
under what conditions, the Mission believes—based on the given parameters and best
available information—that it will be successful in advancing these objectives. At the
center of the CDCS is a Results Framework, a type of logic model that provides a
summary snapshot of the development hypothesis—that illustrates the key results that
the Mission expects to achieve and the major ways it expects the changes to unfold.

The CDCS is not a rigid blueprint for change; it is an organizing framework to facilitate
the ongoing process of monitoring, evaluation, learning, and adapting in support of its
strategic objectives. During the implementation of a CDCS, Missions should work with,
and through, local partners to support them in leading their own change, facilitate
collaborative learning both inside and outside the Mission, monitor the country context,
assess the validity of the overall development hypothesis that underpins the CDCS, and
make iterative adjustments as necessary.

201.3.2.1 Functions of the CDCS

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The CDCS that results from the strategic planning process has several functions:

1. It translates goals outlined in the National Security Strategy (NSS); the State-
USAID Joint Strategic Plan (JSP); State-USAID Joint Regional Strategies
(JRSs); the USAID Policy Framework; Administration-approved Regional
Strategies; USAID’s Acquisition and Assistance Strategy, Private-Sector
Engagement Policy, and Risk-Appetite Statement; and other Administration
and Agency strategies and policies relevant for the Mission context. It also
serves as the development foundation for the State-USAID Integrated Country
Strategy (ICS).

2. It defines a Mission’s Goal, Development Objectives, and approach to build self-

reliance in a partner country, based on a given level of resources over an
agreed-upon period of time, typically (but not necessarily) five years.

3. It provides a guide for the subsequent design of projects and activities that aim to
carry out specific results in the CDCS. It also affords an important opportunity for
Washington OUs and USAID’s Regional Missions to align their field-based
activities with the strategies of bilateral Missions as much as possible, as
encouraged in ADS 201.3.3.6.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 19

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
4. It serves as a frame of reference for the annual Congressional Budget
Justification (CBJ), the Operational Plan (OP), and the Performance Plan and
Report (PPR) required under Section 653(a) of the FAA, as amended.

5. It provides a communications device to tell stakeholders, including the U.S.

Government interagency, partner governments, the development community,
local partners, the private sector, and others, about a Mission’s goals and
objectives.

6. It promotes the principles of aid-effectiveness, including local financing and

stewardship, strategic alignment with the development priorities in partner
countries, harmonization with other donors, and mutual accountability.

7. It provides an organizing framework for the Mission-wide Performance

Management Plan (PMP), and collaborating, learning, and adapting that occurs
throughout implementation of activities. (See Section ADS 201.3.2.14 on the
PMP.)

201.3.2.2 The Role of Missions and Washington OUs in Developing CDCSs

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The development of CDCSs is an Agency- and Mission-wide effort led by Mission

Directors. The following roles are critical:

● Missions. During the process of developing CDCSs, Missions collaborate with

USAID/Washington to set overarching priorities and sectoral focus; assess their
Country Roadmap and related self-reliance approaches; engage with local
stakeholders; conduct mandatory analyses; examine other sources of evidence
or information as relevant; apply findings to develop proposed approaches;
prepare, submit, and/or present required deliverables in each phase of the
process of developing a CDCS; and develop the full CDCS. During the
implementation of CDCSs, Missions develop a PMP to track and assess
performance; negotiate and execute DOAGs with partner governments (as
relevant); work with the Country Team at the relevant U.S. Embassy to reflect
CDCS DOs in the interagency ICS; design and implement projects and activities
that support the CDCS; use CDCS objectives as the basis for planning,
budgeting, and reporting processes; monitor and evaluate the implementation of
the CDCS; revalidate periodically the strategic approach through strategy-level
portfolio reviews, the Mid-Course Stocktaking, and other learning activities; and
amend and/or update the CDCS and associated PMP as necessary.

● PPL. PPL develops Agency-wide policies, procedures, and guidance related to

the CDCS and associated processes connected to the Program Cycle; provides
oversight of the process of developing CDCSs and their subsequent
implementation; mediates disagreements between Regional and Pillar Bureaus

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 20

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
during the CDCS process, as necessary; and supports Missions with technical
assistance on the development and implementation of CDCSs. PPL clears the
Summary of Conclusions memorandum at the end of Phase One and Phase Two
of the CDCS process. In addition, the AtA for PPL co-approves the CDCS, and
any extensions or amendments thereto, along with the relevant Regional Bureau
AA.

● Regional Bureaus. Regional Bureaus provide guidance to Missions on policies,

regional and country priorities, and other regional issues, and support Missions
with technical assistance on the development and implementation of CDCSs. As
the primary interlocutor between Washington OUs and the field, Regional
Bureaus also provide essential support to Missions to facilitate engagement with
stakeholders and Washington OUs throughout the process of creating CDCSs,
and are the conduits for feedback to the Missions regarding their proposed
strategic plans. Regional Bureaus draft the Summary of Conclusions
memorandum at the end of Phase One and Phase Two of the CDCS process. In
addition, Regional Bureau AAs co-approve the CDCS, and any amendments or
extensions over six months, along with the AtA for PPL.

● Pillar Bureaus. Pillar Bureaus provide technical leadership, ensure the

implementation of Agency-wide sectoral strategies and initiatives, and provide
technical assistance to Missions, as requested, in support of the functions
outlined in this section, including for assessments and the collection of other
evidence needed to develop CDCSs. Pillar Bureaus provide critical input and
clearance on the parameters for developing CDCSs and clear subsequent CDCS
deliverables, as relevant and appropriate. To the greatest extent possible, Pillar
Bureaus should align their centrally managed programs with priorities and needs
in approved CDCSs.

● BRM. BRM guides the resource-planning aspects of the CDCS process,

including providing parameters at the beginning of the process to inform the
Mission’s budget scenarios, providing historical data and analysis on budget
trends, and addressing any budgetary questions or concerns during each phase
of the process for developing CDCSs. BRM also clears all Summaries of
Conclusions during the process that include budget information, in addition to the
CDCS itself.

● U.S. Department of State Office of Foreign Assistance Resources (State/F).

State/F leads the interagency strategic planning for the implementation of foreign
assistance, including through the Department of State/USAID Joint Strategic
Plan, and State/USAID Joint Regional Strategies. At the country level, State/F
guides the development of the ICS, a multi-year, overarching strategy that
encapsulates the U.S. Government’s policy priorities and objectives, and the
means for achieving them.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 21

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Bureau for Management (M). M serves as an advisor on business processes,
public financial-management, risk, and procurement, and works with Missions, as
requested, to ensure the appropriate incorporation of issues into each CDCS. In
conjunction with the Regional Bureaus, the M Bureau provides parameters for,
and feedback on, a Mission’s proposed use of Operating Expense (OE) funds.
The M Bureau also provides substantive feedback on the Management
Resources and Structure section of the full CDCS during Phase Three of the
CDCS process.

● Office of Human Capital and Talent-Management (HCTM). HCTM provides

parameters for, and feedback on, a Mission’s proposed staffing pattern and
requests for changes to human-resource levels. In some cases, HCTM will need
to consult with backstop coordinators in the Pillar Bureaus to provide Missions
with the most-accurate information.

● Office of Forestry and Biodiversity within the Bureau for Economic Growth,
Education, and the Environment, (E3/FAB). E3/FAB, in partnership with
Regional Environmental Officers, provides Missions with direction on the
mandatory strategy-level analyses of tropical forests and biodiversity, and the
integration of their findings into the CDCSs as relevant. For additional guidance,
see ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and Approving a Country
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and ADS 201mav, Foreign
Assistance Act Sections 118 and 119 Tropical Forests and Biodiversity
Analysis and Foreign Assistance Act Sections 118/119 Tropical Forests and
Biodiversity Analysis Best Practices Guide.

● Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (E3/GenDev) in E3.

E3/GenDev, in partnership with Gender Advisors in the Regional Bureaus,
provides Missions with direction on the mandatory strategy-level gender
analyses, and the integration of their findings into the CDCSs as relevant. For
additional guidance, see ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and
Approving a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and ADS
205, Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s
Program Cycle.

● Office of Global Climate Change (E3/GCC) in E3. E3/GCC, in partnership with

Bureau and Mission Climate-Adaptation Leads, provides Missions with direction
on the mandatory strategy-level analyses of climate, and the integration of their
findings into CDCSs as relevant. For additional guidance, see ADS 201mag,
Process for Developing and Approving a Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and ADS 201mat, Climate Adaptation in
Country and Regional Strategies.

For more information, see ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and Approving a
Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 22

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

201.3.2.3 Applicability of CDCS Guidance

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

The CDCS guidance herein, and in associated Mandatory References, is applicable to

all Bilateral Missions (hereinafter referred to collectively as Missions), unless exempted
according to ADS 201.3.2.4 or the Mission acquires a waiver under ADS 201.3.2.5.
This guidance does not apply to other types of overseas OUs, such as Country Offices
that do not meet the criteria for a Mission described in ADS 102, Agency Organization;
however, exempt OUs, including those in Washington, are encouraged to apply this
guidance, with adaptations as appropriate and necessary. PPL, in collaboration with
the Regional Bureaus, must update and internally disseminate a list of Missions
required to complete a CDCS on at least an annual basis.

Recognizing that Missions and countries are diverse, this guidance articulates principles
and requirements generally adaptable to all contexts, including those with factors that
contribute to a non-permissive environment (NPE). During Phase One of the CDCS
process, Missions and USAID/Washington negotiate customized parameters that
govern the development of each CDCS and document the decisions in a Summary of
Conclusions memorandum approved by the Assistant Administrator (AA) of the relevant
Regional Bureau. (See ADS 201.3.2.10 on the three phases.) For Missions that
operate in NPEs, customizations may include adjustments to the Results Framework, a
shorter CDCS timeframe, greater attention to country context indicators, and/or scenario
planning, among other options.

This guidance also recognizes that certain variations are appropriate for designated
Missions operating in countries with advanced levels of capacity and commitment that
will be undertaking a “Strategic Transition,” as described in ADS 201.3.2.8. This
guidance describes these variations where relevant, both in this chapter and in
associated Mandatory References. PPL must consult with the Regional Bureaus to
identify and designate countries that have advanced levels of self-reliance and where a
strategic transition will occur.

201.3.2.4 CDCS Exemptions

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

A. Types of Operating Units (OUs)

As described in ADS 201.3.2.3, the guidance herein applies to Missions. Therefore,

Washington OUs and the following types of overseas OUs are exempt from this
guidance:

1. Overseas OUs with limited presence or that do not manage at least $20 million in
programming, such as Country Offices; and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 23

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
2. Overseas OUs that implement single-sector programs.

An OU that is exempt may request approval to develop a country-level strategy

framework that is not subject to the process or requirements herein. However, OUs are
encouraged to use the CDCS guidance and templates, with adaptations as necessary
and appropriate. In such case, the OU must submit the request through an Action
Memorandum to be approved by the relevant Regional Bureau AA, with clearance from
the AtA for PPL. The Action Memorandum must describe how the OU will customize
the process and resulting document. The Regional Bureau AA must provide oversight
of the subsequent process.

An overseas OU that is exempt may request approval to develop a CDCS. In such

case, the OU must submit the request through an Action Memorandum for co-approval
by the relevant Regional Bureau AA and the AtA for PPL.

B. Types of Programming

The following types of programming are exempt from inclusion in the CDCS:

1. Programming both funded and managed by other OUs (e.g., Washington OUs);

2. Programming targeted at preventing, responding to, recovering from, and/or

transitioning from crisis, including:

a. Activities funded by the International Disaster Account (IDA) and managed

by the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) within the
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA);

b. Activities managed by the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) within

DCHA; and

c. Activities managed by the Office of Food for Peace (FFP) within DCHA,
including emergency and non-emergency programs.

While such programming is exempt, Missions should leverage their CDCS process, to
the extent practicable and feasible, to bring greater alignment and synergy between
Mission-funded development programming and other USAID activities implemented in-
country, particularly programming funded by Washington, humanitarian assistance, and
programming targeted at addressing crisis and/or instability. In addition, Missions in
countries with protracted crises and/or instability should consider including a Special
Objective in their CDCSs that addresses humanitarian, transition, and/or stabilization
issues. (See ADS 201.3.2.12.)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 24

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
201.3.2.5 CDCS Waivers
Effective Date: 12/23/2019

Under extenuating circumstances that restrict the Agency’s ability to plan, Missions may
request a waiver from the CDCS process. The relevant Regional Bureau AA and the
AtA for PPL must co-approve the Action Memorandum that provides a justification for
requesting the waiver and the duration of the waiver, not to exceed two years. The
Regional Bureau AA and the AtA for PPL may extend a waiver based on a review of a
follow-on justification.

201.3.2.6 Alignment of CDCSs with Agency and Inter-Agency

Strategies/Policies
Effective Date: 03/10/2020

Development policies and strategies—including U.S. Government-wide, multi-agency,

multi-Department, USAID-specific, regional, and sectoral strategies, as well as CDCSs
and other Mission-level planning documents—should align with one another closely. In
addition, USAID OUs that are developing other types of strategies or development
policies (e.g., Washington OUs, and, in some cases, Regional Missions) should ensure
that they do not undermine approaches set forth in approved CDCSs, except in
exceptional circumstances, such as when mandated by the Administration or the
Congress.

Missions must align their CDCSs with the following policies and strategies as described
below:

● National Security Strategy (NSS). The NSS is a document prepared periodically

by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government that outlines American values
and the major national-security and international economic concerns of the
United States and how the Administration plans to deal with them. Missions
must ensure their CDCSs align with the relevant pillars in the NSS. The current
NSS is available here. To complement the NSS, U.S. foreign assistance,
including funding from USAID, must support America’s national interests through
three primary guiding principles:

○ Win the Great Power competition;

○ Share foreign-aid burdens fairly and focus aid on friends and allies; and
○ Graduate countries and organizations from foreign assistance.

● State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). The JSP outlines overarching goals and
objectives for both institutions in support of the NSS. The JSP informs the
development of Joint Regional Strategies and Integrated Country Strategies.
Missions must ensure their CDCSs align with relevant goals and objectives in the
JSP to advance self-reliance. The Fiscal Year 2018–2022 JSP is available here.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 25

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Administration-Approved Regional and Sectoral Strategies. These documents
flow from the NSS and set out the major national-security and international
economic concerns of the United States in regions of the world or in cross-cutting
sectoral areas (such as counter-terrorism or biosecurity) and how the
Administration plans to deal with them. A Strategy is considered “Administration-
approved” when a Deputies’ or Principals’ Committee has endorsed it and the
National Security Council has published it. The current, official, unclassified
versions of the regional and sectoral Strategies are available here.

● State-USAID Joint Regional Strategies (JRSs). JRSs outline overarching goals

and objectives for both institutions at the regional level in support of the JSP and
NSS. JRSs inform the development of Integrated Country Strategies. Missions
must ensure that CDCSs align with relevant goals and objectives in their
respective JRS. The JRSs for each region are available here.

● Integrated Country Strategies (ICS). ICSs outline overarching goals and

objectives at the country level for State, USAID, and other U.S. Government
Departments and Agencies with programming in the country through a
coordinated and collaborative planning effort led by the Chief of Mission. ICSs
support respective JRSs, the JSP, and the NSS. The ICSs for each country can
be found here.

According to guidance on ICSs from the Department of State, Country Teams at

U.S. Embassies must clearly reflect DOs from CDCSs in their ICSs because they
are central to the annual foreign-assistance Budget Request and performance-
monitoring systems of the State Department and USAID. Therefore, each
Mission must work with the Country Team to ensure the development priorities of
its CDCS are part of the process of developing Mission Objectives (MOs).

Since Missions are accountable for results at the IR level in the CDCS, Missions
should preferably keep IRs together for reporting purposes. In the event that a
Mission divides its IRs among multiple MOs or sub-Objectives, the Mission must
document why it is necessary and how the division will be tracked and reported.

Missions must indicate in the ICS where the DOs are incorporated (i.e., at the
Mission Objective or Sub-Objective levels), with parenthetical references in
Sections 3 and 4. Missions must also include these references with the MOs in
the FACTSInfo NextGen system to ensure users can easily map and find the
CDCS DOs when submitting resource and performance-reporting requirements.

Missions must also submit a draft revised ICS goal–objective structure as part of
the Results Framework Matrix in an annex to the final CDCS (see ADS
201.3.2.11).

● USAID Policy Framework. USAID’s Policy Framework serves as the guiding

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 26

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
policy document for USAID and takes its direction from the JSP and the NSS.
The Policy Framework translates the goals outlined in the JSP and NSS
specifically for USAID. Missions must reflect the principles and guidance from
the Policy Framework in their CDCS. The current Policy Framework is available
here.

● USAID Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy. USAID’s A&A Strategy

outlines the key changes that USAID needs to make to better enable and equip
its A&A workforce and systems to advance self-reliance. Missions should reflect
principles from this Strategy in their CDCSs as much as possible. The A&A
Strategy is available here.

● USAID Risk-Appetite Statement. USAID’s Risk Appetite Statement sets

expectations about how USAID’s OUs should assess and manage threats and
opportunities. The Statement is available here.

● USAID Development Policies, Strategies, and Vision Papers. According to ADS

200, USAID publishes three different types of development policy documents: 1)
policies; 2) strategies; and, 3) vision papers. Not all USAID development policy
documents are equally relevant for all contexts. Missions should consider the
relevance of each policy for their context (based on the needs and priorities in
partner countries, available resources, the results of analyses, investments by
other members of the development community, or other factors) to determine
whether and how they should integrate the policy into their CDCS and other
planning processes under the Program Cycle. In exceptional cases when a
USAID policy mandates roles and responsibilities for specific Missions, these
Missions must align their CDCS and associated projects and activities in
accordance with the policy. A registry of USAID policies is available here.

201.3.2.7 Alignment of CDCSs with Projects and Activities

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The CDCS informs the design and implementation of projects and activities:

● Projects operationalize a result or set of results in the CDCS. Typically, this

alignment is at the level of an Intermediate Result; however, the alignment is not
always a one-to-one relationship.

● Activities implement an intervention or set of interventions, typically through an

implementing mechanism such as a contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or
bilateral agreement with a host-country government, in support of a project.

Oftentimes, the life of projects (and associated activities) will not coincide with the life of
a CDCS. The Index of Existing and Planned Projects annexed to the CDCS (see ADS
201.3.2.11) describes a Mission’s best thinking at the time of the Strategy’s approval

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 27

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
regarding how it plans to achieve the results outlined in the CDCS through new projects
and the realignment of existing projects.

To not constrain future design processes, a Mission should not provide in-depth details
about projects or activities in its CDCS. If the Strategy changes as a result of further
analysis during future process to design projects or activities, a Mission must update or
amend its CDCS according to ADS 201.3.2.19.

See ADS 201.3.3 and ADS 201.3.4 for additional guidance on projects and activities,
respectively.

201.3.2.8 Self-Reliance in the CDCS

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

As described in USAID’s Policy Framework (see ADS 201.3.2.6 regarding this and
other U.S. Government policies), the Journey to Self-Reliance is at the forefront of
USAID’s mission “to end the need for foreign assistance,” and each country context is
the first unit of analysis to make this vision real, reflected in large part through the
Country Roadmaps. To this end, Missions, in collaboration with USAID/Washington,
must develop CDCSs that orient their work around fostering capacity and commitment
in partner countries across all levels—individuals, communities, civil society, the private
sector, and governing institutions—so they can solve their development challenges
eventually without USAID assistance.

This means that Missions that are developing CDCSs must be innovative and strategic
about where and how they work, and focus on the three principles for fostering self-
reliance described in the USAID Policy Framework: advancing national progress in
support of self-reliance, proposing investments that have the most impact, and
sustaining results for meaningful change. Missions must also consider how
programming addresses challenges to the Journey to Self-Reliance posed by external
and internal malign actors.

To ensure CDCSs embody the self-reliance approach, Missions must apply the
following guidance:

A. Use the Journey to Self-Reliance Country Roadmaps to Inform Approaches

First, a Mission must understand how self-reliant its partner country is overall, including
its self-reliance strengths and challenges. The Journey to Self-Reliance Country
Roadmap is USAID’s standardized analytical tool for visualizing national progress
overall and across the dimensions of commitment and capacity based on a set of third-
party, publicly available metrics. Since the Country Roadmap metrics are high-level,
Missions also should analyze and apply additional secondary and country-specific data
sources and use other analyses to understand the country’s underlying self-reliance
story, including the impact of external and internal malign actors.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 28

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Missions should use their Country Roadmap and any secondary metrics to inform the
strategic choices they propose in their CDCSs. In addition, Missions should use the
Country Roadmap as a tool to initiate conversations about self-reliance with local
stakeholders, including with the partner-country government.

To find Country Roadmaps for all low- and middle-income countries, see USAID’s
Journey to Self-Reliance Country Roadmaps web portal. This web portal also
includes a number of additional resources, including a Compendium of Secondary
Metrics that provides suggested context indicators and other resources to further inform
decision-making processes related to self-reliance beyond the primary metrics in the
Country Roadmap. For guidance on how to use the Country Roadmaps and secondary
metrics during the process of creating a CDCS, see Technical Note: Applying the
Country Roadmap to the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

B. Incorporate Key Approaches to Fostering Self-Reliance

Missions should apply the three principles in the Policy Framework: 1) advance country
progress; 2) invest for impact; and, 3) sustain results. Among the broad considerations
that pertain to each principle, a Mission must incorporate the following key approaches
into its CDCS:

1. Advance Country Progress:

○ Redefining the Development Relationship with Partner

Governments—Missions should assess the range of policies,
programmatic tools, and other measures they have at their disposal to
promote greater commitment and capacity of their partner-country
government to support the vision for self-reliance. This means Missions
should engage their partner government to identify shared objectives and
negotiate key commitments to cost-sharing and policy reforms that enable
private investment and trade, enterprise-led growth, and democratic,
citizen-responsive governance and individual rights and freedoms;
coordinate with the U.S. Embassy Country Team to align U.S. foreign-
policy and economic objectives with efforts to incentivize commitments
from the partner-country government; strengthen the core capacities of the
partner-country government to lead on the Journey to Self-Reliance and
use local institutions to deliver assistance as much as possible, where
appropriate commitment and capacity exist; leverage broader civil society
and the private sector to hold government accountable for delivering on its
commitments; and identify opportunities to apply the collective influence of
other donors to incentivize commitment from partner governments and
improve burden-sharing.

2. Invest for Impact:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 29

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
○ Financing Self-Reliance—Missions should identify how they can
strengthen the capacity and commitment of their partner-country
government and the private sector to finance their nation’s own economic
and social development. This includes assisting partner-country
governments in mobilizing additional public revenues; expending
resources more effectively, transparently, and with accountability; and/or
creating the enabling conditions for private investment and functioning
capital markets.

3. Sustain Results:
○ Private-Sector Engagement—Missions should increase and deepen
their collaboration with the private sector to identify market-based
approaches that can address some of the vexing development challenges
that countries face along their self-reliance trajectory. This includes
supporting the development of market systems across sectors; expanding
opportunities for U.S. firms; and aligning with private enterprises as co-
creators of market-oriented solutions with shared risk and shared reward.

C. Develop a Transition Plan to Evolve Approaches as Self-Reliance Grows

As part of the process of developing a CDCS, all Missions should plan to evolve—or
“transition”—their approach as the government, civil society, and the private sector in
the partner country builds self-reliance. The overall concept of transition planning aligns
with principles set forth in the NSS, the JSP, and USAID’s Policy Framework, as well
as related directives in the Agency’s annual appropriations. Because the requirements
in appropriations bills change on an annual basis, any Mission that is initiating the
development of a CDCS should consult with GC or an RLO on the current status of
Congressional directives with respect to transition planning and how a CDCS must
address them.

For most USAID Missions, planning for transition will be a long-term endeavor.
However, for a subset of Bilateral Missions that operate in countries that demonstrate
relatively advanced levels of self-reliance, Missions must plan for a type of transition
planning called “strategic transition” during the period of the CDCS itself. Specifically,
these designated Missions must leverage the process of creating their CDCSs to
identify how they will shift their assistance relationship from a donor-recipient dynamic
to one of enduring economic, diplomatic, and security partnership. Such strategic
transitions do not necessarily signal the end of USAID’s engagement, but, more
typically, its evolution to a new relationship. PPL must consult with Regional Bureaus to
identify and designate countries that have relatively advanced levels of self-reliance and
where a strategic transition will occur.

General opportunities to change the nature of USAID’s relationship with a partner

country could include, but are not limited to, transitioning out of specific sectors, shifting
from programming to technical/policy assistance, and leveraging other resources and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 30

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
development actors, among other options. For designated “strategic-transition”
countries, opportunities could also include, but are not limited to, building stronger
security alliances, commercial ties, and/or trilateral cooperation as the partner country
becomes a donor and international leader.

For additional guidance on transition planning, including strategic transitions, see ADS
201mak, Country Transition Planning. ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and
Approving a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) also provides
customized guidance for Bilateral Missions undertaking a strategic transition in Section
VI.

D. Engage Local Partners Meaningfully Throughout the Process of Developing

a CDCS

A core tenet of the vision of self-reliance is building the commitment and capacity of
local partners to chart and finance their own development paths and implement their
own development solutions. To this end, Missions should collaborate meaningfully with
local partners throughout the process of developing a CDCS to ensure self-reliance is a
shared priority, and that the final CDCS reflects a shared commitment to change. This
engagement should include dialogue with the partner-country government, the private
sector, civil society, faith-based and community organizations, and others. As part of
this engagement process, Missions should also make efforts to look beyond their
traditional local-partner portfolio to new collaborators, especially those with deep roots
in the communities that they support and who are committed to fostering self-reliance.

201.3.2.9 Preparation for the CDCS Process

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The official CDCS process takes place on a prescribed timeline that should last no more
than eight months. To maximize this compact process, Missions should initiate
preparations prior to the official launch of the process by 1) analyzing their Country
Roadmap and other data/evidence to assess their country’s trajectory on the Journey to
Self-Reliance (as laid out in ADS 201.3.2.8); 2) engaging local stakeholders, including
the partner-country government, to identify local priorities and potential partnerships;
and, 3) beginning to conduct the three mandatory analyses (gender, tropical forest and
biodiversity, and climate change). In addition, Missions should undertake other work to
assess, review, and/or synthesize evidence and lessons-learned from program
implementation and other sources to inform strategic choices and priorities for their
CDCS.

For additional guidance on preparation for the CDCS process, see ADS 201mag,
Process for Developing and Approving a Country Development Cooperation
Strategy (CDCS).

201.3.2.10 Overview of the CDCS Process

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 31

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Effective Date: 12/23/2019

The official CDCS process includes a series of milestones and associated timeframes to
facilitate an iterative dialogue between Missions and USAID/Washington that results in
clear decisions and, ultimately, the Agency’s endorsement of a Mission’s final CDCS.
The total process should take no more than eight months. As described in ADS
201.3.2.9, Missions should initiate preparations prior to the launch of this process to
maximize this period of time.

The official CDCS process consists of three phases:

● Phase One: Initial Consultations and Parameter-Setting: During Phase One,

Missions initiate a formal dialogue with relevant Washington Bureaus and
Independent Offices (B/IOs) and interagency stakeholders to ensure that
subsequent drafts of the CDCS reflects a corporate view of Washington’s
expectations. In addition, they discuss the self-reliance strengths and
weaknesses in their partner countries based on their assessment of the Country
Roadmap. This phase culminates in agreement between the Mission and
Washington on priorities, sectoral focus, and other parameters for a CDCS that
will foster self-reliance. It also results in agreement on the Mission’s plan for
developing the CDCS during Phases Two and Three.

● Phase Two: Development of a Results Framework: During Phase Two,

Missions finalize key analyses, assess evidence and/or other types of
information, engage with local stakeholders and relevant Washington B/IOs to
establish their initial development hypothesis; prepare the Summary Paper and
Matrices annex for their Results Framework (linked back to the Country
Roadmap assessment from Phase One), the two required annexes; and outline
the next steps to prepare a full CDCS. This phase culminates in Agency
agreement on the approaches the Mission will use to advance its strategic goal
and the Journey to Self-Reliance, and an organizing framework that will inform
the subsequent development of the PMP (see ADS 201.3.2.14), projects, and
activities (see ADS 201.3.3 and ADS 201.3.4).

● Phase Three: Preparation and Approval of the CDCS: During Phase Three,
Missions apply findings from additional analyses and consultations, further refine
their strategy, and prepare and submit a full CDCS. This phase culminates in the
final approval of the Mission’s CDCS by the responsible Regional Bureau AA and
the AtA for PPL.

Within 30 days of final CDCS approval, Missions must submit their final CDCS for
dissemination through the internal USAID websites ProgramNet and USAID Pages. In
addition, Missions must submit a public version that does not include any Sensitive but
Unclassified information for dissemination through two external USAID websites,
USAID.gov and the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). The Regional

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 32

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Bureau AA and the AtA for PPL must also approve this version. Both the internal and
public versions of the CDCS must be compliant with ADS 551.

For detailed guidance on the process for developing a CDCS and associated
timeframes and deliverables, see ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and
Approving a Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

201.3.2.11 Overview of the Content of a CDCS

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

A CDCS should be no more than 35 pages long, excluding annexes. The life of a
CDCS is typically five years; however, variations are sometimes appropriate, particularly
in countries characterized by recurrent crises and/or instabilities.

A CDCS includes the following sections:

I. Executive Summary—a high-level summary of the CDCS, coupled with a

diagram of the Results Framework that provides a snapshot of intended results.

II. Country Context—a description of the factors that informed the Mission’s
approach to its CDCS. This should include a description of the partner country’s
self-reliance assessment, as reflected in the Country Roadmap; overarching U.S.
foreign-policy, economic, and national-security considerations; the needs and
priorities in the partner country; and other circumstances in the development
context, in addition to identified gaps in knowledge of the country context. For
most Bilateral Missions, this section must also include a sub-section on country
transition planning. (See ADS 201.3.2.8 and ADS 201mak, Country Transition
Planning on the Country Transition Plan.)

III. Strategic Approach—a high-level description of the Mission’s approaches to

advance the country’s Journey to Self-Reliance in view of the country context,
the Country Roadmap, the U.S. Government’s principles for foreign assistance,
and available established good practices for building self-reliance. (See ADS
201.3.2.8 on the Journey to Self-Reliance in the CDCS.) This should include a
description of the role of the partner-country government, the private sector, civil
society, faith-based and community organizations, interagency partners and
others, and mechanisms to align or coordinate efforts as relevant.

All Missions should address countering malign external influences, such as from
the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, and the Islamic
Republic of Iran. In addition, Missions that are operating in countries listed on the
Tier 2 Watch List or Tier 3 in the Trafficking In Persons (TIP) Report must
address TIP in their CDCS and Missions that are operating in countries listed on
Tier 1 (Countries of Particular Concern) and Tier 2 of USCIRF’s Annual Report
and/or the Department of State’s Report on International Freedom must

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 33

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
address religious freedom in their CDCS.

IV. Narrative Results Framework—a narrative description of the Mission’s Goal and
the development hypotheses that underpin each DO in the Mission’s Results
Framework. This includes the Mission’s hypothesis regarding the causal
relationships between each of the IRs that lead to the DO, and how success in
advancing the subject DO will contribute to overall national self-reliance. It also
identifies key actors or institutions that are critical to the DO’s self-reliance
trajectory and major assumptions and/or risks that could affect the success of the
hypotheses.

V. Monitoring, Evaluating, and Learning—a high-level description of the Mission’s

overall priorities and approaches to monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL)
and Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA). This includes how the Mission
and partners will use MEL and CLA to understand whether and how approaches
are building the capacity and commitment of local actors and institutions and
fostering national self-reliance. This description should also identify and prioritize
any knowledge gaps to address. This section, together with the Summary Paper
and Matrices annex to the Results Framework, should inform the subsequent
development of the PMP. (See ADS 201.3.2.14 on the PMP.)

VI. Program Resources and Priorities—a description of the budget and management
resources needed to advance the objectives of the CDCS.

VII. Annexes:

A. The Journey to Self-Reliance Country Roadmap—USAID’s primary

analytical tool to assess and visualize self-reliance for the subject country.
(See ADS 201.3.2.8 on the Country Roadmaps.)

B. Climate-Change Analysis—one of the mandatory analyses for a CDCS.

(See ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and Approving a Country
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) on the mandatory
analyses.)

C. Two Budget Scenarios—a base scenario based on historical funding

levels and one that reflects an optimal distribution of funding focused on
maximizing a zero-based, self-reliance-driven approach, irrespective of
history, Congressional directives, mortgages, or pipeline.

D. Table to Map the CDCS to the NSS, JSP, and ICS—a table that maps the
objectives of the CDCS to that of other U.S. Government Strategies. (See
ADS 201.3.2.6 on other U.S. Government Strategies.)

E. Index of Existing and Planned Projects—a preliminary plan for designing

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 34

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
projects under the new CDCS and realigning current projects as
appropriate. (See ADS 201.3.2.7 on the relationship between strategies,
projects and activities.)

F. Summary Paper and Matrices for the Results Framework —an annotated
version of the Results Framework initially submitted during Phase Two of
the process for developing the CDCS. This annex, together with the MEL
section, should inform the subsequent development of the PMP. (See
ADS 201.3.2.14 on the PMP.)

G. CDCS Scenarios, if applicable—a set of scenarios to facilitate adaptive

management during implementation in country contexts characterized by
a high level of uncertainty.

See the CDCS Outline for detailed descriptions of each of these required sections.

201.3.2.12 The Results Framework and Associated Development Hypotheses

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

A. The Results Framework (RF)

At the center of a Mission’s CDCS is the Results Framework (RF). The RF is a type of
logic model that shows the results that USAID, in collaboration with its partners, expects
to contribute to or achieve during the strategy period. The RF must include the
following: 1) a Goal; 2) up to four DOs in support of the Goal; and 3) a set of
complementary IRs in support of each DO. The RF should also include sub-IRs that
contribute to each of the IRs. The RF is organized as a vertical flow chart, with boxes
and arrows, to show the assumed causal and/or sequential connections that link each of
these results. As described in Section ADS 201.3.2.8, the CDCS, as reflected in the
RF, must reflect the strategic approaches that the Mission has identified to advance
self-reliance in each partner country, grounded in the Country Roadmap and other
secondary metrics as appropriate.

The following graphic illustrates the structure of a typical RF:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 35

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

The RF is not a complete representation of a full CDCS. It is a snapshot useful for the
purposes of planning, implementation, and communication, supported by accompanying
narratives of the Development Hypotheses that is the foundation of each CDCS. The
Mission must update its RF during the period of a CDCS to respond to new evidence or
changes in context (including through the implementation of projects and activities), and
should be dynamic, rather than fixed.

For Missions that operate in highly volatile contexts, an RF, as defined here, might not
be practical, as quickly changing conditions might not allow for definitive statements on
results. In these cases, customizing the RF could suit the Mission’s needs better. For
example, a customized RF could identify and explain an overall aspirational Goal with
Special Objectives that articulates broad lines of effort, rather than detailed expected
results specified by a more traditional Framework. Missions that are considering
customizing an RF must consult with their Regional Bureau and PPL as early as
possible.

Once the Agency has approved a CDCS, the RF provides Missions with a
communications device to show stakeholders at a glance what the Strategy is about.
The RF also serves as an organizing framework for the Mission’s MEL and adaptation
approaches. (See ADS 3.2.14 on the Performance-Management Plan.) Finally, the RF
provides a guide for subsequent project-design processes aimed at operationalizing its
results. (See ADS 3.2.7 on the alignment of the CDCS and subsidiary projects.)

Definitions for each type of result appear below:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 36

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Goal—the highest-level result a Mission, together with the partner-country

government, civil-society actors, and other development partners, will advance in
support of the Journey to Self-Reliance. The Goal should be practical and reflect
the priorities of the broader U.S. Government and the Mission, particularly the
vision for self-reliance. While USAID is not solely accountable for achieving the
Goal, the CDCS should provide a guidepost for strategic choices.

● DOs—the most ambitious results toward which a Mission, together with its
development partners, can contribute. DOs reflect specific development
problems a Mission intends to address in support of a country’s self-reliance
trajectory and the CDCS Goal. Informed by evidence and analysis, Missions
may focus DOs on a particular sector, a geographic region, a targeted
population, a local system, or a combination of these factors. DOs may also
integrate the efforts of various technical sectors. Missions must ensure their DOs
align to at least the three primary guiding principles of U.S. foreign assistance:

○ Win the Great Power competition;

○ Share foreign-aid burdens fairly and focus aid on friends and allies; and
○ Graduate countries and organizations from foreign assistance.

● IRs—lower-level results that, when combined, are expected to contribute to the

advancement of a DO. IRs should be specific and measurable. IRs are the
highest-level results for which USAID is accountable for reporting. A Mission
must identify at least one illustrative performance indicator to monitor progress
toward the achievement of each IR. The RF Matrix must include illustrative
indicator(s) for each IR.

● Sub-IRs—lower-level results that, when combined, are expected to contribute to

the advancement of an IR. Missions must identify sub-IRs during Phase Two in
the RF Matrices and should include them in the final RF graphic; however, Sub-
IR narratives are not required in the final CDCS. A Mission must identify at least
one illustrative performance indicator to monitor progress toward the
achievement of each sub-IR. The RF Matrix must include illustrative indicator(s)
for each sub-IR.

In addition to these standard elements, there are two types of objectives that Missions
may use in addition to, or in lieu of, traditional DOs, as agreed-upon with
USAID/Washington:

● Special Objectives (SpOs)—a type of DO that is more flexible for purposes of

addressing or acknowledging unique or extenuating circumstances. For
example, depending on agreements reached with USAID/Washington, some
Missions may use SpOs to reflect strategically important programs that do not fit
into the Mission’s Goal statement, including programs that have been externally

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 37

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
mandated or deemed essential. Other Missions may use SpOs for time-limited
programs that will not last the duration of the CDCS. In addition, Missions that
operate in highly fluid contexts may use SpOs to articulate broad lines of effort
rather than a specific result specified in a more traditional RF. In addition,
Missions in countries with protracted crises and/or instability should consider
including an SpO in their CDCS that addresses humanitarian, transition, and/or
stabilization issues. Missions that want to customize the RF to include Special
Objectives in lieu of traditional DOs must consult with the relevant Regional
Bureau and PPL as early as possible. SpOs typically count toward a Mission’s
limit of four DOs.

● Support Objectives—a type of DO that reflects services a Mission will provide to

other Missions in its region. Because Support Objectives focus on management,
rather than the implementation of program resources, they do not count toward
the DO limit.

B. The Development Hypotheses

Each DO in the RF depends upon a Development Hypothesis that underpins the results
presented in the Framework. The Development Hypothesis, or “theory of change,”
describes how and why USAID believes it will achieve a particular high-level
development result in a given context and what it will take to achieve these outcomes.
The Development Hypothesis consists of a Development Hypothesis Statement and a
Development Hypothesis Narrative. The Development Hypothesis Statement is
generally an “IF-THEN” statement that explains how results will lead to a high-level
outcome or change. The accompanying short narrative explains the causal logic and
the relationships between results upward from the sub-IRs, to the IRs, to the DOs. The
Development Hypothesis Statements and Narratives, taken together, must include four
key characteristics:

● A clear articulation of the developmental logic (from development theory,

experience from implementation, and other evidence—such as the Country
Roadmap and secondary metrics) a Mission believes should lead to the
development results;

● A brief explanation of how USAID will leverage national commitment and/or

capacity at the DO level, or conversely, where the Mission will make efforts to
address the deficits that hold the country back;

● A general statement on USAID’s role in achieving these results; and

● A reflection of key assumptions or risks that could affect the success of the
hypothesis.

Missions must also account for actors whose involvement are critical to helping USAID

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 38

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
achieve the stated results (e.g., government, civil society, the private sector, or other
donors) in their Development Hypotheses. Accounting for all actors in the Mission’s
particular development context can help explain how USAID will advance its goals and
objectives, even if a Mission’s own capacity and resources are limited.

Results should be part of the Development Hypotheses and Results Framework even if
USAID will not spend any Program funds directly to obtain them (such as policy reform
that comes from the influence of USAID staff rather than the investment of Program
funds).

While it is not necessary, nor practical, for a Mission to have complete knowledge about
the context in which it is operating, the Development Hypotheses must articulate the
Mission’s best understanding of the specific problems it seeks to address and ensure
available evidence supports its choice of approach. As appropriate, Missions should
also identify any gaps in its knowledge that could affect its RF and document those in
the MEL section of the CDCS. Missions must also be explicit about any assumptions
implied in the hypotheses, and plan to monitor and revisit these assumptions regularly.
Scenario-planning could be helpful for Missions that seek to address development
challenges that hinge on specific, but uncertain, outcomes.

201.3.2.13 Overview of Implementing a CDCS

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

Mission Directors are responsible for managing the implementation of a CDCS and
identifying an appropriate management structure to advance its objectives most
effectively. USAID promotes the use of multi-functional teams (teams that intersect
various offices within the Mission) to ensure collaboration and synergy in support of a
CDCS’s objectives. They may do so through the creation of DO Teams, in addition to
mandatory Project Teams as described in ADS 201.3.3.14.

The duties and responsibilities of a Mission Director and associated management teams
in implementing a CDCS include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. After Approval

● Develop an initial PMP within three months of the approval of a CDCS. (See
ADS 201.3.2.14.)

● If applicable, negotiate a DOAG agreement with the partner-country

government or amend the existing DOAG (see ADS 201.3.2.17).

● Realign existing projects as appropriate, and begin designing new projects in

support of the Country Roadmap and the results in the RF. (See ADS
201.3.2.11 regarding the Index of Existing and Planned Projects.)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 39

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Ensure the State-USAID ICS reflects the CDCS’s Development Objectives.
(See ADS 3.2.6 regarding the alignment of a CDCS with an ICS.)

● Identify the most-appropriate management structure(s) to implement the

CDCS effectively. (See ADS 201.3.3.14 regarding project teams.)

B. Oversight

● Oversee the design, management, and measurement of projects and

activities, and ensure their cohesiveness in achieving the objectives of the
CDCS and the results in the RF.

● Amend and/or update the CDCS and associated PMP as necessary. (See
ADS 201.3.2.19 and ADS 201.3.2.14, respectively.)

C. Planning, Budgeting, and Reporting of Foreign Assistance

● Use the objectives of the CDCS, as reflected in the ICS, as the basis for the
annual MRRs; Congressional Budget Justification; and other planning,
budgeting, and reporting processes.

D. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

● Monitor the implementation, progress, performance, results, and operational

context of the CDCS.

● Track performance indicators described in the PMP. (See ADS 201.3.2.14

for requirements for indicators.)

● Ensure that associated MEL plans for Projects and Activities are consistent
with, and meet, the PMP’s data-collection needs.

● Update the PMP to reflect changes or updates to baselines, targets, or

indicators.

● Plan and implement evaluations pursuant to the requirements described in

ADS 201.3.5.13.

E. Collaborating, Learning and Adapting

● Facilitate collaborative learning, both internally in the Mission and among

implementing partners and local stakeholders, through periodic meetings with
partners, learning networks, and/or topical communities of practice, among
other means.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 40

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Assess and/or revalidate continually the CDCS’s strategic approach through
MEL activities such as portfolio reviews, stocktakings, and engagement with
stakeholders.

● Conduct at least one strategy-level portfolio review per year that focuses on
progress toward strategy-level results. (See ADS 201.3.2.16.)

● Conduct at least one CDCS Mid-Course Stocktaking during the life of the
Strategy to align implementation with changes in the context and the
Agency’s direction. (See ADS 201.3.2.16.)

● Based on learning, make adjustments to the implementation of the CDCS as

appropriate. (See ADS 201.3.2.19.)

201.3.2.14 Performance Management Plan (PMP)

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

A PMP is a Mission-wide tool for planning and managing the processes of monitoring
strategic progress, project performance, programmatic assumptions, and operational
context; evaluating performance and impact; and learning and adapting from evidence.
Each Mission must prepare a Mission-wide PMP. Missions that do not have a CDCS
are still required to have a PMP that covers any projects they fund. Missions should
use the PMP to inform allocations of resources, the Mission’s portfolio-review process,
and the mid-course stocktaking of their CDCS.

A Washington OU may use the guidance in this section if it determines a PMP would be
useful for the management of its portfolio. (See How-To Note: Prepare and Maintain
a Performance Management Plan (PMP) for additional guidance.)

A. Content of the PMP

The PMP must include the following:

I. Section 1: Monitoring Plans for DOs

These are descriptions of how the OU will monitor progress, performance,

programmatic assumptions, and operational context within each DO,
including the following:

(1) Performance indicators, including, but not limited to, the following:

● At least one performance indicator for each IR identified in the

CDCS RF;

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 41

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● At least one performance indicator for each sub-IR identified in
the CDCS RF; and

● At least one performance indicator for any Project Purpose not

aligned to an IR or sub-IR. (For additional guidance on defining
a Project Purpose, see ADS 201.3.3.12.)

(2) Supplemental information about each performance indicator,

including the following:

● Baseline data, or plans to collect baseline data;

● End-of-CDCS or end-of-project targets, or plans to set targets;

and

● A Performance-Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS) for which

data-collection for an indicator has started. (For additional
guidance about the PIRS, see ADS 201.3.5.7).

(3) A description of any additional efforts for monitoring programmatic

progress and performance within each DO.

(4) A description of how the Mission will monitor contextual conditions

relevant to a DO, including a list of any context indicators for
monitoring assumptions or risks that could affect progress against the
DO or the operational context in which the Mission is implementing
strategies and projects. (For additional guidance on context
monitoring, see ADS 201.3.5.5.)

II. Section 2: Evaluation Plan

This plan identifies, summarizes, and tracks all evaluations as a Mission

plans them, and over the entire CDCS timeframe by DO. An evaluation
plan must include the following information for each planned evaluation, as
it becomes available:

● The strategy, project, or activity to be evaluated;

● The purpose and expected use of the evaluation;

● The type of evaluation (performance or impact);

● Possible evaluation questions;

● Whether the evaluation is external or internal;

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 42

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Whether the evaluation fulfills an evaluation requirement or is a

non-required evaluation;

● Estimated budget;

● Planned start date of the evaluation; and

● Estimated completion date of the evaluation.

The Mission should update information in the evaluation plan from Project
and Activity MEL Plans upon their approval. The Mission must ensure to
include information from the evaluation plan in the Evaluation Registry of the
annual Performance Plan and Report.

III. Section 3: Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) Plan

This plan describes the Mission’s approach to CLA, a set of processes and
activities that help ensure programming is coordinated, grounded in
evidence, and adjusted as necessary to remain effective throughout
implementation (see ADS 201.3.5.19). The plan should be based on an
understanding of the Mission’s current learning practice and should be
grounded in the Mission context. At a minimum, the Mission must develop a
plan that addresses the following, with timeframe and responsible offices
listed in the schedule of performance management tasks:

● Plans for strategic collaboration;

● Knowledge gaps at the strategy level and plans for filling them;

● Processes for periodic opportunities to reflect on progress, such as

after-action reviews and partner meetings, to inform adaptation;
and

● Plans for resourcing CLA at the Mission.

The Mission may identify other priority areas that should also be included in
the plan and discuss how the CLA priorities will support the Mission’s
broader development goals. For more information, see Drafting a
Collaborating, Learning and Adapting Plan.

IV. Section 4: Schedule of Performance-Management Tasks and

Responsibilities

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 43

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
In this schedule, the Mission lists the tasks it anticipates conducting over the
life of the CDCS, as described in the monitoring, evaluation, and CLA plans.
In this schedule, the Mission also identifies the timeframe and office or point
of contact responsible for the listed task. Typical performance management
tasks in the schedule include:

● Updating and revising the PMP (particularly during the annual

strategic portfolio review process);

● Collecting and analyzing data;

● Assessing data quality;

● Designing and conducting evaluations as planned, needed, and/or

required; and

● Periodic and intentional opportunities for reflection to inform

adaptation, including portfolio reviews and mid-course stocktaking
of the CDCS.

V. Section 5: Resources for Performance-Management Tasks

Description of human and financial resources needed for planned

monitoring, evaluation and CLA efforts described in the PMP.

B. Approval of the Performance-Management Plan

Each Mission must prepare a Mission-wide PMP that reflects the current status
for all the required sections of the plan within three months of the approval of a
CDCS.

The Mission Director must approve the initial PMP. Upon approval, this PMP
must be uploaded on ProgramNet.

It is not expected that the PMP will be comprehensive upon approval. Missions
must update their PMPs continually over the life of their CDCSs because they
typically design projects and activities after the approval of the PMP. At
approval, the initial PMP must include the following:

(1) Monitoring Plan: A description of how the Mission will monitor progress,
performance, programmatic assumptions and operational context within
each DO, including final or preliminary performance indicators for
measuring the IRs and sub-IRs of the RF. Each performance indicator
requires:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 44

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Baseline data, or plans to collect baseline data;

● End-of-CDCS or end-of-project targets, or plans to set targets;

and

● PIRS for which data-collection on indicators has started.

(2) Evaluation Plan: Summary information, as of the PMP approval date, on

planned evaluations the Mission intends to complete during or after the
CDCS timeframe.

(3) CLA Plan: A complete draft, which the Mission must update as
necessary during the implementation of a CDCS.

(4) Schedule of Performance-Management Tasks and Responsibilities: A

calendar of the performance-management tasks as planned in the
aforementioned MEL and CLA plans, to date.

(5) Resources for Performance-Management Tasks: Estimated staff level of

effort and financial resources necessary to implement the MEL and CLA
efforts described in the PMP.

C. Modifying the Performance-Management Plan

Missions must keep the PMP up-to-date to reflect changes in the CDCS or
projects, especially new project indicators, evaluations, and learning efforts.
Missions must review and update the PMP at least once per year as part of their
portfolio-review process, as described in the PMP Task Schedule. Mission
Directors are not required to approve updates to the PMP.

201.3.2.15 Monitoring and Evaluation During Implementation

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

USAID has a responsibility to monitor progress, performance, and operational context of

the implementation of CDCSs, especially through site visits and regular interactions with
implementers. Throughout implementation, Missions should ensure that performance-
monitoring, context-monitoring, and evaluation efforts are adequate to facilitate strategic
learning and adaptively manage implementation of the strategy, and to ensure they are
fulfilling their reporting requirements.

Missions must monitor the progress and context within each DO, at a minimum, by
tracking performance indicators for each IR and sub-IR and any Project Purpose not
already aligned at the IR or sub-IR level. Missions are responsible for ensuring that
indicators and monitoring data, as described in the PMP, are up-to-date and of sufficient
quality for the purposes of learning and managing adaptively.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 45

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Evaluation requirements and procedures for planning and implementing an evaluation

are described in ADS 201.3.5.13. Although evaluations that address strategic-level
concerns are best planned during CDCS development, a Mission may make a decision
to evaluate at any point during the implementation of a Strategy, particularly if new
information arises indicating that an evaluation is appropriate for accountability or
learning purposes.

201.3.2.16 Learning and Adaptive Management During Implementation

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

During strategy implementation, the Mission generates knowledge and learning by

implementing projects; participating in learning activities such as portfolio reviews and
stocktaking exercises; using the PMP; engaging stakeholders; and making use of staff,
partner, and counterparts’ experiential knowledge, among other activities. Based on this
learning, the Mission should make changes to the strategic implementation of the
program as needed.

A. Portfolio Reviews

Portfolio reviews are opportunities for Missions to periodically examine all

aspects of the Mission’s strategy, projects, or activities. Missions must conduct at
least one portfolio review per year that focuses on progress toward strategy-level
results. The portfolio review examines:

● Progress toward achievement of CDCS and project results and

expectations regarding future progress;

● The status of critical assumptions and changes in context, along with

related implications for performance; and

● Opportunities to adapt as a result of learning.

Missions should consider the following issues during portfolio reviews:

● Status of critical assumptions and the Development Hypotheses;

● Country and regional trends and how the context is evolving;

● Status of cross-cutting themes;

● What has been learned from monitoring data, evaluations, partners,

program participants or other sources of information;

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 46

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● The allocation and management of resources to support the Mission’s
objectives;

● Status of post-evaluation action plans (see ADS 201.3.5.18); and

● Challenges and next steps for improving performance.

The portfolio review during the final year of the CDCS must include a review of
the cumulative achievements toward the DOs and IRs, with the results
documented to support knowledge-management.

After the portfolio review, the Mission should update the CDCS or PMP as
needed to reflect changes in the evaluation plan, CLA plan, and/or new plans for
monitoring. For more information on portfolio reviews, see How-To Note:
Strategy-Level Portfolio Review.

B. CDCS Mid-Course Stocktaking

At least once during the course of CDCS implementation, Missions must conduct
a CDCS stocktaking with the objective of better aligning the implementation of
the Mission’s programs with changes to the context and Agency direction, as well
as with emerging knowledge and lessons learned. This allows Washington OUs
to understand progress to-date on CDCS implementation as well as important
changes in context. The Mission must develop an information memorandum,
recording any substantive changes in the country context or strategic approach,
and send it to the Regional Bureau for review.

A CDCS mid-course stocktaking should:

● Re-validate the RF and its underlying assumptions or identify potential

amendments to the Framework for review with USAID Washington;

● Reinforce continuity and institutional knowledge among new staff;

● Review the correspondence between the CDCS and trends in the Country
Roadmaps over the period of the Strategy;

● Re-engage stakeholders and donor partners and facilitate stronger

relationships with and among them;

● Assess progress on the country transition plan, as relevant;

● Focus on learning from monitoring data, site visits, evaluations, partners,

program participants, or other sources of information to guide adaptations;
and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 47

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Look ahead to the next CDCS; including identifying future analytic needs
and knowledge gaps.

A CDCS mid-course stocktaking fulfills the requirement for a Mission’s strategy-

level portfolio review for that particular year. The Mission must submit
documentation of the stocktaking process to the Regional Bureau, which will
distribute it to identified points of contact in other Washington OUs. For more
information, see How-To Note: CDCS Mid-Course Stocktaking and ADS
201mag, Process for Developing and Approving a Country Development
Cooperation Strategy.

201.3.2.17 Obligation by Development Objective Agreements (DOAGs)

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

Many Missions obligate funds through a DOAG. DOAGs are grant agreements with a
partner government. A DOAG is one of the key places to document a partner-country
government’s agreement to make financial, policy, or in-kind contributions to address
the critical development constraints to achieving self-reliance goals. Contributions could
include those required by Section 110 of the FAA, or ones that are not statutorily
required. Missions should normally discuss these constraints, and the need for partner-
country contributions, as part of the process of developing a CDCS, rather than fully
deferring discussions to the DOAG-negotiation stage. In some cases, it could be
appropriate to document contributions by the partner-country government in
Implementation Letters. Missions and partner-country governments should also
document contributions in MOUs or multi-donor agreements with the partner
government.

The process of developing and negotiating DOAGs presents an opportunity for Missions
to rethink how they engage with partner governments to support them in achieving their
self-reliance goals. Negotiations also provide an opportunity for Missions to ensure
partner governments make full use of the leverage provided by USAID’s foreign-
assistance resources to further U.S. foreign-policy and economic objectives, increase
burden-sharing, and address protracted development challenges. Missions should
examine what they are asking of government counterparts—especially in terms of cost-
share and policy reforms necessary to accelerate the Journey to Self-Reliance—and
how Missions hold both parties accountable for results.

In most cases, the parties to the DOAG agree that USAID may sub-obligate and
disburse funds through contractors and recipients of grants and cooperative
agreements. DOAGs incorporate key conditions and requirements for both parties, and
can serve as a way to obligate funds at the DO level, which provides Missions with a
degree of adaptability to respond to changing circumstances without necessarily having
to deobligate funds.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 48

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Missions should meet all pre-obligation requirements prior to the obligation of USAID
funds in a DOAG, which occurs when the DOAG is signed or amended to add funds. In
addition, prior to signing a DOAG, Missions must ensure that adequate planning is
completed to satisfy Section 611(a) of the FAA, and that the DOAG constitutes a valid
and binding obligation. Nevertheless, some pre-obligation requirements could be more
appropriately satisfied at a sub-obligation stage. In such cases, the Mission must
document the decision for deferral with RLO clearance.

Missions maintain control of funds at the DOAG level and the sub-obligation level.
Missions should exercise caution to ensure they do not permit DOAGs to expire while
funds from the DOAG are still active in instruments.

The completion date of a DOAG should generally correspond to the end date (or
extended end date) of its associated DO/CDCS. USAID generally negotiates DOAGs
initially as five-year agreements, and Missions should tie them to the period of a CDCS.
As there is often some delay between the approval of a CDCS and the signature of a
DOAG, a DOAG may extend for a limited time beyond the CDCS. A Mission may
extend the completion date of a DOAG to expend prior-year funds that are remaining in
the DOAG after the end date of the CDCS.

When a Mission transitions to a subsequent CDCS, it does not have to retain a DO

approved in the prior CDCS. If a Mission retains a DO, it may extend the completion
date of a DOAG to correspond to some or all of the period of the subsequent CDCS,
and it might be appropriate to obligate funding to support the new CDCS into the
existing DOAG. When a Mission does not incorporate an existing DO in a subsequent
CDCS, it would generally not be appropriate to obligate funding that supports the
subsequent CDCS into the existing DOAG. Missions may choose to have a prior and
subsequent DOAG overlap for a period of time to ensure the effective transition of
funding and activities. In managing and amending DOAGs, Missions should consider
the life spans of all instruments into which will sub-obligate funds from the DOAG.
Mission Directors, RLOs, Controllers, Contracting/Agreement Officers, and Technical
and Program Offices should work together to extend DOAGs appropriately to cover the
period in which a Mission will use funds in sub-obligating instruments.

For additional guidance on legal requirements on the use of funds, see ADS 201.3.1.8
and ADS 201mad, Legal Requirements Summary Checklist.

201.3.2.18 Expiration and Extension of the CDCS

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

CDCSs expire on the date specified in the CDCS Approval Memorandum or any
subsequent CDCS Extension Memo. Extensions are not encouraged; however, in
some cases, they could be justified.

There are two types of CDCS extensions:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 49

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

1. Extensions for up to six months: Missions may use this option only once during
the CDCS period. These extensions do not require clearance or approval from
USAID/Washington as long as the combined duration of all extensions does not
exceed two years.

2. Extensions beyond six months: These extensions require approval from the AtA
for PPL and the relevant Regional Bureau AA based on a compelling justification.

Two years is the maximum cumulative duration of CDCS extensions.

See ADS 201max, Regional and Country Development Cooperation Strategy

Updates, Amendments and Extensions for additional guidance.

201.3.2.19 Amending and Updating the CDCS

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

CDCSs should be living documents, and Missions should regularly revisit their CDCS to
take stock, capture learnings, and make adjustments as necessary. Triggers for
adjusting a CDCS include, but are not limited to the following: 1) changes in the country
context that prompt major shifts in programming; 2) internal changes in funding or
Administration or Agency policy priorities that call for a rescoping or revision of intended
results; and/or, 3) recommended changes to the Development Hypotheses revealed
through monitoring, evaluation, site visits, and/or learning during the course of
implementation.

There are two types of CDCS adjustments:

1. An update: An update occurs when a Mission makes changes at the IR (or sub-
IR level, if applicable) in the CDCS. Updates do not require clearance or
approval from USAID/Washington. However, Missions must advise PPL and the
Regional Bureau of any update.

2. An amendment: This occurs when a Mission makes changes at the DO or Goal

level in the CDCS. Changes made to either a Special Objective or Support
Objective also require an amendment, unless the change is part of a phase-out
previously specified in the Strategy. Missions must obtain approval from the AtA
for PPL and the Regional Bureau AA for an amendment.

See ADS 201max, Regional and Country Development Cooperation Strategy

Updates, Amendments and Extensions for additional guidance.

201.3.2.20 Closing out a CDCS

Effective Date: 12/23/2019

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 50

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
At the end of a CDCS, the Mission should capture and synthesize its experience and
lessons learned to inform the subsequent CDCS. The subsequent CDCS does not
have to incorporate DOs from the previous CDCS.

As described in ADS 201.3.2.6, the life of subsidiary projects and activities will often not
coincide with the life of a CDCS. For Missions with DOAGs, the de-obligation of leftover
funds and close-out process for a DOAG will be complete when all activities under that
DOAG have closed out. (See ADS 201.3.2.17 for additional guidance on DOAGs.)

201.3.3 Design and Implementation of Projects

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Project design is the process by which USAID defines how it will operationalize a result
or set of results in a CDCS or other strategic framework to ensure that efforts are
complementary and aligned in support of the strategy. Whereas the strategic-planning
process defines the strategic approach, the project-design process guides its execution.

Consistent with the Program Cycle principles in 201.3.1.2, the project-design process
recognizes that development seeks to influence complex systems and requires
integrated tactics to achieve higher level results and sustainability of outcomes. For
these reasons, project designs typically incorporate multiple activities such as contracts
and cooperative agreements with international organizations, F to local organizations,
and direct agreements with partner governments, as well as non-agreement-based
activities such as policy dialogue undertaken directly by USAID staff. Missions should
think creatively about how they can use the broad range of USAID’s tools most
strategically to strengthen local institutions and engage local actors as the drivers
behind long-term, sustainable change.

For Missions with an approved CDCS, the purpose of the project (hereinafter “Project
Purpose”) must support the Mission’s CDCS Results Framework. In many cases, the
Project Purpose will align with a single Intermediate Result (IR) in the Framework;
however, it is not always a one-to-one relationship. Regardless of its alignment, the
Project Purpose must be defined at a level of ambition judged to be attainable with the
Mission’s resources, staff, and influence.

201.3.3.1 Roles of Missions and Washington OUs in the Design and

Implementation of Projects
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Project design is an Agency and Mission-wide effort. For Mission-led design, the
following functions are critical:

A. Washington OUs

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 51

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Washington OUs provide guidance to Missions on policies and priorities; support
Missions with technical expertise; ensure the implementation of Agency-wide
sector strategies and initiatives; and provide field support, as requested, to
Missions in support of the functions outlined in this section, including for the
analysis and collection of other evidence needed to develop project designs.

B. Mission Program Office

The Mission Program Office oversees the project-design process, including the
review process for each phase of project design; ensures that staff follow
mandatory policies and procedures; manages the budget-planning process to
ensure funds availability for projects and associated activities; promotes and
shares good programming practices and lessons-learned; advises on the
development and implementation of Project MEL Plans; integrates
USAID/Washington-level and Mission-level budgetary and analytical processes
(monitoring, evaluation, learning, adaptation, resource-performance, and the
organization of portfolio reviews); and provides objective, Mission-level review of
project progress.

C. Mission Technical Offices

Mission Technical Offices oversee the technical aspects of the project-design

process; play a leadership role in conducting or reviewing analyses and
designing the project; and typically assume project-management responsibilities,
including coordinating MEL and ensuring the management of activities in a
complementary and synergistic manner to support the achievement of a project’s
outcomes.

D. Mission Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA)

The Mission OAA Office serves as a business advisor to providing guidance on

how the design team can achieve the project’s outcomes with the Agency's broad
range of A&A tools; makes decisions in close consultation with the team on
preliminary selection of new A&A mechanisms; and works with the team during
implementation to provide guidance on how to make adjustments when
necessary to ensure project-based A&A activities are working in the most
synergistic manner in support of the project’s outcomes, all in accordance with
the limitations of their delegated authority and with applicable statutes,
regulations, and policies.

E. Mission Office of Financial Management

The Mission Office of Financial Management (OFM) leads in the execution of the
Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF) Stage 2
Risk Assessment (in addition to the Stage 1 Rapid Appraisal prior to the project

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 52

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
design process) and addresses all technical issues concerning the assessment
of financial management systems of partner governments; assesses and reviews
absorptive capacity if contemplating awards to local entities; provides guidance,
where applicable, on how the financial management capacity of local partners
can be built in support of project outcomes (given staff resources); and oversees
all financial management matters related to the implementation of Mission
projects.

F. Mission Executive Office

The Mission Executive Office (EXO) is often responsible for the procurement of
small activities, goods, and services under the simplified acquisition threshold,
such as analyses, assessments, and other short-term support; oversees USAID
staffing needs that support project design and implementation; and maintains
Project Design and Implementation Mission Orders or Mission Notices to
supplement the project design policies and procedures in this chapter.

G. Mission RLO

The Mission RLO provides legal counsel and advice on a broad range of matters
related to the design and implementation of projects, such as factors related to
the use of partner country systems and minimizing financial and programmatic
risk, among others.

H. Mission Environmental Officer

The Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) assists and advises Project Design
Teams on how to conduct a project-level environmental review; documents
deferrals where needed pursuant to 22 CFR 216 and ADS 204, Environmental
Procedures; submits 22 CFR 216 documents, with their written determination for
review and concurrence, to the appropriate Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO)
in Washington; and advises on how to effectively monitor implementation of
approved mitigation measures.

I. Mission Gender Advisor/Point of Contact

The Mission Gender Advisor and/or Gender Point of Contact (POC), where
applicable, takes a lead role in conducting or reviewing the mandatory project-
level gender analysis (see ADS 205); provides guidance to staff as identified in
the Mission Order on Gender to ensure that gender equality and female
empowerment are integrated in meaningful ways into the project design; ensures
that project-level performance indicators are, as appropriate, sex-disaggregated
and/or gender-sensitive; and collaborates with the Project Design Team during
implementation to monitor, evaluate, and learn from projects with regard to their

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 53

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
impact on gender integration and advise on any course corrections that could
further close gender gaps.

J. Cross-Cutting Advisors and Points of Contacts in the Mission

Cross-cutting technical advisors and/or POCs take an active role in conducting,

facilitating, or reviewing mandatory and non-mandatory analyses to provide
insights about technical issues related to their respective areas of responsibility;
and provide advice, guidance and follow-up on respective issues in the design
and implementation of projects.

201.3.3.2 Applicability of Guidance for Project Design

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The project design guidance in this section is applicable to all field-based OUs
(hereinafter “Missions”). However, there are specific categories of exemptions and
waivers governing the process. Partial application of guidance for Washington OUs that
expend program funds is also defined below.

201.3.3.3 Exemptions for Missions

Effective Date: 04/18/2018

Mission Awards for Management and Support Services: The project-design process
is not required for Mission awards that provide institutional support services, such as
Mission-wide or DO-level monitoring, evaluation and learning contracts, since they are
not programmatic in nature. The process for developing Mission management and
support services awards should comply with relevant activity design steps outlined in
201.3.4.

Standalone Activities under $5 Million: The project-design process is not required for
standalone activities not associated with a project where the total estimated budget is
under $5 million; however, these activities should still support the Mission’s CDCS
Results Framework. An Activity Approval Memorandum (AAM) (see ADS 201mai,
Activity Approval Memorandum Template) must be used to approve such activities.
Missions must satisfy requirements in 201.3.4 and document the satisfaction of pre-
obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) and other instrument-specific requirements.

Emergency Food Assistance, Disaster Assistance, and Transition Assistance:

Certain activities targeted at preventing, responding to, recovering from, and
transitioning from crisis are exempt from the project design guidance. These activities
include:

(1) Natural and man-made disaster assistance managed by the Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA);

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 54

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
(2) Activities managed by the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), or activities
funded with the Complex Crises Fund (CCF) managed by Missions; and

(3) Emergency Food Assistance managed by the Office of Food for Peace (FFP).

While these activities are exempt from the project-design guidance, USAID encourages
Missions and Washington OUs to incorporate them into projects wherever feasible to
facilitate greater integration with long-term development aid. Mission or Washington
OUs (depending on who takes the managerial lead) may use OU-specific
documentation to approve the activity. However, the Mission or Washington OU must
document the satisfaction of pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) requirements.

Cash Transfers, Sovereign Bond Guarantees, and Enterprise Funds: The following
types of activities are exempt from the project-design process: 1) cash transfers
designed to encourage policy reforms and provide balance of payments or
budget support; 2) sovereign bond guarantees designed to provide host governments
with access to affordable financing from international capital markets; and, 3) enterprise
funds that make direct equity investments and/or loans and other financial products to
private enterprises. Missions may use OU-specific documentation and processes to
approve such activities. Although exempt from an AAM (see ADS 201mai, Activity
Approval Memorandum Template), Missions must document the satisfaction of pre-
obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) requirements.

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR): The Office of the Global
AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) has authority over planning and approval of PEPFAR funds
programmed through the annual Country Operational Plan (COP) process. However,
PEPFAR activities should also be approved through a multi-year approval document if
they are intended to be longer than one year in length. If a PEPFAR-funded activity
contributes to a multi-sector project (i.e., PEPFAR plus any other sector, including
health), its design must be approved through an AAM (see ADS 201mai, Activity
Approval Memorandum Template).

201.3.3.4 Waivers for Missions

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The project design process is Mission-driven, and Mission Directors have the authority
to waive approval of activities—either standalone activities or multiple complementary
activities—when:

● The established exemption criteria are not met, and

● The urgency of responding to short-term or unforeseen circumstances requires a

substantial deviation from standard requirements.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 55

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
The waiver must be documented through an Action Memorandum, signed by the
Mission Director, that briefly describes the justification for the waiver. An AAM (see
ADS 201mai, Activity Approval Memorandum Template) should be used to approve
such activities.

201.3.3.5 Guidance for Washington OUs that Expend Program Funds

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Washington OUs should approve the design of Washington-funded and managed

activities in an AAM (see ADS 201mai, Activity Approval Memorandum Template),
depending on whether activities or sets of activities constitute a “project” with multiple
mechanisms contributing to a higher-level outcome or a standalone mechanism not
associated with a project.

The OU must follow the guidance in 201.3.3.9 through 201.3.3.14, with adaptations as
appropriate and necessary. The OU should use sector strategies or other relevant multi-
year strategic frameworks to define the Project Purpose at a level that requires the
contributions of multiple complementary activities.

Regardless of the type of memorandum used to approve the activity, Washington OUs
must follow the activity guidance in 201.3.4 and document the satisfaction of pre-
obligation and instrument-specific requirements.

201.3.3.6 Mission Concurrence for Washington- or Regional Mission/Platform

Funded Activities
Effective Date: 06/20/2017

Washington Operating Units and Regional Missions/platforms may fund and manage
activities implemented in countries under the jurisdiction of a USAID Mission. However,
before initiating implementation of such activities, the WOU/RM must obtain
concurrence from the responsible Mission Director, or their designee. When possible,
concurrence should be obtained during activity design. If the country is not identified at
the time of design, concurrence must be obtained as early as possible, whether it be
during the solicitation process or prior to the start of implementation. Both the
Washington OU or the Regional Mission/platform and the bilateral Mission must
document concurrence. In addition, these activities should ideally support results in the
bilateral Mission’s strategy (see ADS 201man, Process for Obtaining Mission
Concurrence for Washington and Regional Mission Funded Activities for additional
information on this requirement).

201.3.3.7 Project-Design Considerations

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

Missions must plan for and address, as applicable, the following considerations when
designing or amending projects.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 56

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Missions Without an Approved CDCS: Pursuant to 201.3.2.4, not every Mission is

required to have a CDCS. However, this does not exempt a Mission from the project
design process defined in this chapter. In the absence of a CDCS, Missions should use
preliminary Results Frameworks, sector strategies, or other relevant multi-year
frameworks to define the Project Purpose at a level that requires the contributions of
multiple complementary activities. Missions may consider expanding the Project-Design
Plan (PDP) in the first phase of the project design process to better describe the
rationale for the Project Purpose and alignment with relevant Agency policies and
strategies (see 201.3.3.11).

Unsolicited Proposals and Applications: Unsolicited proposals and applications

should only be considered when they support results in a Mission’s strategy. Missions
should incorporate these activities into the relevant AAM, whether as initially approved
or as amended, as soon as practical. (See ADS 302 and ADS 303 for additional
guidance on unsolicited proposals and applications respectively.)

Approaches that Support Innovation, Co-Creation, and/or Co-Design: Missions

should use approaches that support innovation, co-creation, and/or co-design – such as
Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs) or Annual Program Statements (APSs) or
agreements derived under such approaches – as much as possible.

Field-Support Mechanisms: “Field support” is defined as a mechanism managed by a

Washington OU that Missions access using Operating Year Budget (OYB) transfers.
While Washington maintains the managerial lead for these agreements, Contracting
Officer’s Representatives/Agreement Officer’s Representatives (CORs/AORs) typically
work closely with the Mission to ensure successful collaboration. In addition, the Mission
is responsible for documenting the satisfaction of pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation)
requirements. For these reasons, field support activities are considered to be field-
based activities in this guidance, and the decision to access and design for field support
must support intended outcomes in a Mission’s project design. There are certain
PEPFAR-funded activities, as described in 201.3.3.3, that qualify for an exemption to
this rule.

Program Assistance: Program Assistance, historically known as Non-Project

Assistance, is a generalized resource transfer, usually in the form of foreign exchange,
to the recipient government based on meeting defined benchmarks or performance
indicators that are not based on cost. With the exception of cash transfers and
sovereign bond guarantees (see 201.3.3.3), Program Assistance must be approved
through an AAM (see ADS 201mai, Activity Approval Memorandum Template).
Guidance on using Program Assistance is evolving. Therefore, it is recommended that
Missions that are considering using Program Assistance consult with PPL/SPP prior to
initiating the design process.

Projects or Activities with a Counter-Trafficking in Persons (C-TIP) Component:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 57

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 requires USAID to
share information on all planned projects or activities containing a significant anti-
trafficking component with the interagency Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG)
before a final Agency decision is made and after an award is made (see Mandatory
Sharing of Projects or Activities with a Significant Counter Trafficking-in-Persons
Component to the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) for additional
guidance).

Activities with an Information Technology (IT) Component:

1. IT Investments for Agency Use. Pursuant to the Federal Information

Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), ADS 509, Management and
Oversight of Agency Information Technology (IT) Resources, and ADS 300,
Agency Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Planning, Missions and
Washington-based Operating Units must request approval from M/CIO for IT
components intended for Agency use in any planned projects or
activities. Examples of IT for Agency use include a monitoring and evaluation
system used for program evaluation and reporting, a prepositioning application
for managing food delivery to host countries, and a tracking and management
tool used for processing FSN job applications.
Project and activity planners must engage M/CIO as soon as an IT component
for Agency use is identified. If IT for Agency use is identified in the acquisition
planning stage, planners must obtain approval from the CIO prior to submitting
the requisition into Global Acquisition and Assistance System (GLAAS). The
requirement for M/CIO’s approval also applies during the performance of the
contract as IT may be identified after the contract is awarded. Submit requests
for M/CIO approval for IT components to [email protected].

More information about Agency policy and procedures for acquiring IT resources
can be found in ADS 509 and AAPD 16-02 Revised.

2. IT Investments for Host Countries. M/CIO approval is not required for IT

procured for host countries. Examples of IT procured for host countries include
health information management systems procured for the government of a host
country and personal computers procured for schools in another host country.

201.3.3.8 Project-Design Process

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

There are two general phases to the development of a project design. In Phase One,
the Mission defines the preliminary purpose of the proposed project and a roadmap of
the analytic, and other, steps necessary to complete the design. This phase concludes
in an approved PDP. In Phase Two, the Mission completes key analyses and
synthesizes these analyses into a theory of change and associated implementation

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 58

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
plan, which includes a brief description of the family of activities that will execute the
project design.

The Mission Director approves the project design through a brief Approval
Memorandum. This Memorandum provides approval to proceed with the design of
activities for which certain minimum planning criteria, described in 201.3.3.13, have
been satisfied. During the project design process, some Missions may opt to
concurrently initiate the process of designing activities before final approval. This is
encouraged, where feasible, in order to minimize lead times and ensure activities are
fully aligned with the project. However, the intention to design activities concurrently
during the project design process must be included in the PDP. In addition, Missions
must follow procedures defined in 201.3.4 and document the satisfaction of relevant
pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) and instrument-specific requirements.

Although the project design process described in this chapter defines a common
methodology for all project designs across all Missions, not every project will be
designed with the same investment of time and resources. Each project design is
unique, and Missions have significant discretion to customize the process to meet the
needs of each particular project.

201.3.3.10 Project-Design Team

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The Project-Design Team (hereinafter the “Project Team”) and its leader must be
defined at the inception of the project design process. The Project Team should be a
multi-disciplinary group from across the Mission to ensure that there is alignment and
consistency among the technical, managerial, and budgetary facets of the project and
that the appropriate level of human and financial resources is deployed to carry out the
design work.

Missions have the authority to organize their staff to most efficiently carry out the project
design process within certain common parameters:

● The Mission Director (or designee), in consultation with the appropriate DO Team
Leader (or staff with similar function if there is no DO Team), should designate
the Project Team Leader.

● The Project Team should include staff from the lead technical office(s), the
Program Office, OAA, and OFM, as well as the RLO and other technical staff as
appropriate. The MEO and Mission Gender Advisor/POC should also be
members of Project Team. Because monitoring and evaluation is a critical aspect
of project design, the team should include a monitoring and evaluation specialist.

● In addition to USAID Mission staff, the Project Team may include participation by
members of the country team, other USAID Missions, and Washington OU staff.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 59

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Where appropriate, and as available, cross-cutting technical advisors and POCs

in the Mission—including but not limited to the Climate Integration Lead; the
Mission Engineer; the Mission Economist; the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and/or Intersex (LGBTI) focal point; and others—should participate
on the team.

● If the Mission is considering possible use of direct assistance to the partner

government (G2G), it should have established a Partner Government Systems
(PGS) Team under the leadership of the Controller, and completed a PFMRAF
Stage 1 Rapid Appraisal by Phase Two of the CDCS development process (see
201.3.2.8). Since the outcome of the Stage 1 appraisal should be taken into
consideration early in the project design process, members of the PGS Team
must be integrated into the Project Team. Missions must complete the PFMRAF
Stage 2 Risk Assessment, the Approval to Use Partner Government Systems
(AUPGS), and other requirements during the initial design process, or
subsequent to initial approval through an amendment process.

● Since engaging local development actors from the beginning of a project design
process is essential to facilitate local ownership, Missions should consider
including key actors in an extended Project Team to inform the design process.
Key actors often include individuals associated with the partner country
government, private sector, think tanks, universities, and other local
organizations. The Contracting Officer/Agreement Officer (CO/AO) and RLO
should provide guidance to the team to mitigate potential conflicts of interest,
where applicable.

201.3.3.11 Preparing for the Project-Design Process

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Before officially launching the project-design process, a Mission must ensure that it has
reviewed previous plans and analytical work so it can build on this base and avoid
duplication of effort. This includes reviewing analyses that were conducted during the
CDCS process, as well as the Annex of Existing and Planned Projects in the CDCS in
which the project was initially identified (see 201.3.2.8). It also includes consolidating
relevant lessons learned from analyses, reviews, evaluations, or portfolio reviews from
prior projects or activities.

201.3.3.12 Phase One: Project-Design Planning

Effective Date: 10/29/2018

During Phase One, the Mission defines the preliminary purpose of the proposed project
and outlines the analytic and other steps necessary to complete the design. Faced with
potential multiple design processes in the same timeframe, this phase also provides
Mission management an opportunity to decide which of these designs will benefit from

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 60

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
the most significant investment of staff time and financial resources. Phase One
concludes in an approved PDP.

The PDP may take the form of a memorandum or a PowerPoint presentation. If a

memorandum format is used, it should not exceed 5-10 pages, with length depending
on the complexity of the design process.

The PDP is intended to be a roadmap, not a preliminary project design; however, there
may be instances when Mission management wants additional detail. This is a Mission
decision based on the circumstances of the particular project design. At a minimum, the
PDP must include the following sections:

● Preliminary Project Purpose,

● Plan for Engaging Local Actors,

● Plan for Conducting Analyses,

● Plan for Considering Possible Use of G2G (if applicable),

● Preliminary Estimate of the Total Amount of USAID Funding,

● Project Design Schedule and Estimated Cost, and

● Activities Scheduled for Concurrent Design (if applicable).

A. Content of the Project-Design Plan (PDP)

Preliminary Project Purpose: This section defines the Project Purpose, which is
the key result to be achieved by the project. This Purpose must support a result
or set of results in the Mission’s CDCS Results Framework, and it will often align
with an IR in this Framework. It also must be defined at a level of ambition that is
judged to be attainable given the Mission’s resources, staff, and influence.

The Project Purpose is typically a reframing of the development problem to the

change or result to be achieved. For example, a problem of "high infant mortality"
would be reframed as a result of "infant mortality reduced.” Since understanding
the problem is an iterative process that is likely to continue to be refined as a
result of the analytic and engagement work during the subsequent design
process, the Project Purpose is considered “preliminary” in the PDP.

This section should also establish boundaries to clearly delineate what is inside
and what is outside the project context (or “local system”) in which the project will
occur. Making choices about the project’s scope of action – based on an initial
understanding of the problem – is critically important to sharpen the team’s focus

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 61

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
and enable the Mission to appropriately define the analyses to be incorporated
into the design process.

Plan for Engaging Local Actors: This section outlines a strategy for ensuring
inclusive, meaningful, and consistent engagement with key local actors
throughout the project design and/or implementation process for purposes of
promoting sustainability through local ownership. Local actors include
organizations or individuals and entities in the local system—such as the partner
country government, civil society, the private sector, and others—who jointly
produce outcomes that affect achievement of the Project Purpose. Building
sustainability and local ownership into the subsequent project design and
implementation should be based on an understanding of these actors, their
interrelationships, and the incentives that guide them. Use of sector or
stakeholder mapping, Requests for Information (RFIs), conferences, surveys,
social media, etc. may be helpful to ensure that this engagement process
captures the full range of actors important to project outcomes (see Discussion
Note: Implementing Local Ownership for additional guidance).

Plan for Conducting Analyses: This section discusses how the mandatory
analyses will be conducted and what additional analyses are essential to
understand the theory of change underlying the project. This section should also
address the balance between the time and cost of the proposed analyses and
the size and complexity of the development challenge to define an appropriate
analytic agenda. In order to avoid overly detailed, up-front planning that could
rapidly become obsolete, the Mission may decide to defer certain non-mandatory
analyses to later during implementation to ensure that information is received at
the best moment to inform decision-making.

Mandatory analyses include gender, environment, climate risk, and, where

applicable and appropriate, analyses associated with the use of direct
agreements with partner governments (see 201.3.3.12 for additional guidance on
these analyses). Other analyses—such as political economy analysis, cost-
benefit analysis, inclusive development analysis, and conflict analysis—are
often very helpful in illuminating the context and identifying potential entry points
to affect change.

Plan for Considering Possible Use of G2G (if applicable): This section
recommends whether the Project Team should consider the use of direct
agreements with the partner government during project implementation. The
decision to consider the use of partner government systems triggers a number of
additional analyses; therefore, Missions will need to plan for this early in the
design process.

If a PFMRAF Stage 1 Rapid Appraisal has not been completed, a direct

agreement with the partner government should not be considered as part of the

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 62

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
project design process, except when the estimated amount of USAID assistance
is less than the applicable threshold (currently $750,000), or a waiver has been
approved (see ADS 220 for additional guidance).

If a PFMRAF Stage 1 Rapid Appraisal has been completed, this section should
discuss whether the time and cost of completing a full risk assessment, including
a PFMRAF Stage 2 Risk Assessment, AUPGS, and requirements related to
Section 7031 of the annual Appropriations Act, are reasonable and appropriate
given the government’s role in achieving and sustaining project outcomes. In
cases where the use of direct agreements will be considered during the project
design process, this section may include a plan to complete the additional
analyses. Alternatively, the PFMRAF Stage 2 Risk Assessment and other
requirements may be deferred to later during implementation when adequate
information is available. Adequate information includes the type of implementing
mechanism, budget, required systems, and flow of funds. I

Preliminary Estimate of Total USAID Project Budget: The total USAID project
budget should be estimated, recognizing that this is essentially a resource
availability estimate and not a project cost estimate.

Project-Design Schedule and Estimated Cost: To ensure adequate human

and financial resources for the project design, this section should describe an
overall project design schedule, including estimated times for completing
identified analyses and other components of the design, as well as an estimated
cost for completing the design process (e.g., estimated cost of temporary duty
travel for Washington technical staff, in-country travel by Mission staff, contract
cost for completing a PFMRAF Stage 2 Risk Assessment or other institutional
assessment, etc.). This estimated cost is for planning purposes and does not
require an amendment to the PDP if actual costs are higher than originally
estimated.

Activities Scheduled for Concurrent Design (if applicable): This section

briefly describes any activities that the Mission intends to concurrently design
during the project design process. This is encouraged, where feasible, in order to
minimize lead times. Missions must also follow procedures defined
in 201.3.4 and document the satisfaction of relevant pre-obligation (or pre-sub-
obligation) and instrument-specific requirements.

B. PDP Review and Approval

Upon completion, the PDP should be distributed and reviewed in a meeting

(normally Mission-wide) chaired by the Mission Director or designee. In most
cases, the Program Office will orchestrate the review meeting and draft an Issues
Paper based on input from involved Mission offices.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 63

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Significant issues to be discussed and resolved during review of the PDP could
include:

● Is the preliminary Project Purpose defined at a level of ambition that is

likely to be attainable given the Mission’s resources, staff, and influence?

● Will the plan for identifying and engaging local actors facilitate broad,
meaningful, and consistent engagement to ensure a design that supports
local ownership and longer-term sustainability of outcomes?

● Does the proposed analytic agenda reflect an appropriate balance

between the time and costs of the analyses with the size and complexity
of the development challenge being addressed?

● If G2G is being considered, is the time and cost of completing all required
assessments reasonable and appropriate given the government’s role in
achieving and sustaining project outcomes?

● Is the preliminary estimate of the total USAID project budget realistic and
sufficient given the complexity and size of the development challenge?

After adjustments are made to the draft PDP as a result of the Mission review,
the Program Office should prepare an Action Memorandum for Mission Director
approval authorizing the team to move to the project design phase. The
memorandum should provide any necessary guidance to the Project Team on
the conduct of the project design process, questions, or issues to be answered
during the process, and any other factors to be taken into consideration by the
team. The memorandum may also plan check-in(s) with Mission management,
particularly for large projects involving a significant amount of resources.

201.3.3.13 Phase Two: Project Design

Effective Date: 10/29/2018

In Phase Two, the Mission develops a theory of change—a description or illustration of

how and why the Project Purpose is expected to be achieved in the project context—
along with an associated implementation plan to facilitate its execution. This theory
should be developed based on an understanding of the project context, an assessment
of the development problem, and a review of evaluations and other mandatory and non-
mandatory analyses. With these analytics underpinning the design, the selected theory
of change and associated approach for its execution are ultimately approved in an
[PAD].

The process of developing the theory of change should be a participatory process

involving broad engagement with local stakeholders and a series of dynamic critical-

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 64

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
thinking exercises to examine the body of evidence, draw out different viewpoints, and
reach consensus on the best possible approach given the available information. This
process requires both time and open and honest reflection from across the Project
Team, as well as any stakeholders on the expanded team.

The Project Team must provide a snapshot of the theory of change in a logic model that
is included as an Annex to the [PAD]. The logic model is a graphic or visual model that
organizes and depicts the team’s thinking on the logical relationships between what the
project will do and the changes it expects to see. This is not an exact representation of
the theory, but a simplified snapshot, and should normally be presented on one page so
that it is easy to see the theory and the linkages. Missions may choose from a range of
logic models, depending on the project and its context.

During implementation, it is expected that the theory of change will evolve. Therefore,
the initial theory is not intended to define a rigid implementation plan, but to provide an
organizing framework that should be updated as new evidence emerges, circumstances
change, and tactics require adjustments. To this end, the Project MEL Plan should
define a learning plan to fill gaps in technical knowledge and inform adjustments during
implementation. In most cases, these informal updates may be made at the working
level, without formal amendments to the [PAD].

Ideally, the [PAD] that captures the project design should not exceed ten pages—
depending on the project’s complexity and the number of activities it encompasses—
excluding Annexes. The [PAD] must include the following key sections, which are
described in further detail below:

● Project Purpose;

● Context;

● Relationship to the Mission’s CDCS (or Other Strategic Plan);

● Project Description;

● Other Leveraged Resources;

● Summary of Conclusions of Analyses;

● Management and Implementation Plan:

- Activity Plan; and
- Project Management Approach;

● Project MEL Plan:

- Monitoring;
- Evaluation; and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 65

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
- Learning;

● Financial Plan.

The following are required Annexes to the [PAD]:

● Project Logic Model,

● AUPGS (applicable for G2G activities)

A. Content of the [PAD]

[PADs] must include the following brief sections:

Project Purpose: This section defines the Project Purpose – which is the key
result to be achieved by the project – along with at least one performance
indicator to measure progress toward the Project Purpose. The Project Purpose
must be defined at a level of ambition that is judged to be attainable given the
Mission’s resources, staff, and influence (see 201.3.3.12 for additional guidance
on defining the Project Purpose).

Note: In many cases, the Project Purpose may have been further refined from
the preliminary purpose articulated in the PDP as a result of the analytic work or
other evidence gathered during the design process.

Context: This section examines the root causes underlying the development
problem, including how the interests, perspectives, and interdependencies of key
actors in the local system affect the problem. It may also identify circumstances
or conditions in the operating context that may affect project outcomes,
particularly those that are likely to change over the course of implementation and
will need to be monitored. Tools and methods for deepening understanding of the
context include the problem tree, stakeholder analysis, the 5Rs approach,
systems diagrams, situation models, political economy analysis, and force field
analysis, among others. For more information on the 5Rs approach, see The
5Rs Framework in the Program Cycle.

Relationship to the Mission’s CDCS: This section describes how the project
supports the Mission’s Results Framework. In many cases, the Project Purpose
will align with a single result in the Results Framework, often at the IR level;
however, it is not always a one-to-one relationship.

Project Description: Based on the analyses and other supporting evidence, this
section presents the project’s theory of change, describing the team’s
understanding of how the process of change is expected to take place and how
USAID intends to directly and/or indirectly work to influence these changes. This

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 66

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
theory should be located in the larger context or system in which the project will
operate to identify possible actions that can help improve the system and change
the behaviors of actors who influence it to ensure the sustainability of project-
level outcomes.

This section should also identify critical assumptions regarding the conditions,
behaviors, or critical events outside the control of the project that must hold true
for results to be achieved. In addition, there are often risks in the project context
that are outside the control of the project but could have negative consequences
on the achievement of project outcomes. These assumptions and risks should be
explicitly identified since they form part of the theory of change regarding the
conditions under which change is expected to occur, and they should be
monitored using context monitoring methods described in 201.3.5.5.

Note: The Project Description complements the Project Logic Model, which is
annexed to the [PAD] and provides a snapshot of the theory of change through
an illustration or graphical display.

Other Leveraged Resources: This section describes how the design supports
local ownership, and facilitates financial and non-financial resources from local
actors, to increase the likelihood that Purpose-level outcomes will be sustained
over time. Local actors may include the partner country government, the private
sector, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and others.

In addition, this section describes resources from other donors that are expected
to have a material effect on the success of the project. Other donors may include
development assistance agencies, international NGOs, and multilateral
organizations, among others.

Summary of Conclusions from Analyses: This section summarizes the high-

level conclusions of the various analyses, assessments, or evaluations
commissioned or consulted during the design process. It also explains how the
findings have informed the project design and/or will affect subsequent
implementation. There are a number of required analyses which are described
below; however other analyses—like political economy analysis, cost-benefit
analysis, inclusive development analysis and conflict analysis—may be
needed to make design decisions. The Mission may also defer some non-
mandatory analyses to later during implementation to ensure that information is
received at the best moment to inform decision-making. Required analyses
include:

● Environment: Missions must follow the requirements in 22 CFR Part 216

for environmental analysis. In most cases, the responsible officer will
conduct an environmental review; however, additional analysis may be
needed at the activity level after [PAD] approval. If there is not enough

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 67

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
information to complete the environmental review, the [PAD] must state
that the environmental review has been deferred and estimate the amount
of time required to complete the environmental review, as well as the
reasons for deferral. See 22 CFR Part 216 and ADS 204, Environmental
Procedures for additional guidance.

● Gender: Missions must follow the requirements in ADS 205 for gender
analysis to provide insights about gender gaps and identify possible entry
points or opportunities to address gender equality in the project design.
The analysis should build upon and/or update the analysis conducted for
the CDCS.

● Climate Risk: Pursuant to Executive Order 13677, Missions must assess

climate-related risks and vulnerabilities in all programs and address them
as appropriate. For projects that fall under a screened DO or IR that was
rated low risk, a statement to this effect must be included in the [PAD]
narrative and the Summary of Conclusions from Analyses. For all other
projects, additional analysis may be required, and the methodology and
results of climate risk management must be documented in the [PAD]
narrative, the Summary of Conclusions from Analyses, and the project’s
environmental compliance analysis (e.g., IEE), if applicable (see
requirements in ADS 201mal, Climate Risk Management for Projects
and Activities).

● Analyses associated with use of direct agreements with partner

governments (if applicable): There are additional requirements when a
Mission intends to use direct agreements with governments as part of
project implementation. These requirements include the PFMRAF Stage 2
Risk Assessment as well as the institutional assessment and other
requirements defined in Section 7031 of the annual Appropriations Bill.
Since the requirements under Section 7031 may change annually, the
Project Team must consult with their RLO for updated requirements, if
applicable.

Project Management and Implementation Plan: This section describes the set
of activities and management structures that the Mission will use to put the
design into action. The plan has two sections:

● Activity Plan: This subsection describes the set of activities, both ongoing
and new, that will be used to implement the project. These activities
include programmatic activities, as well as MEL activities that support the
project. This sub-section also presents a time-phased schedule of activity
design and procurement, focusing especially on the first year following
approval. In developing this plan, Missions should think creatively about

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 68

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
how they can most strategically use the broad range of tools at USAID to
achieve and sustain results. Two broad types of activities should be
considered and incorporated into this plan:

(1) Ongoing Activities: The Activity Plan must consider and

incorporate, where appropriate, the portfolio of ongoing awards or
agreements that support achievement of the Project Purpose.
This should include a description of any
amendments/modifications or work plan adjustments that may be
needed to make these mechanisms more fully aligned with the
project. The team should consult with the CO/AO and RLO to
confirm the feasibility of planned changes.

(2) New Activities: The Activity Plan must also identify all new
activities that will be implemented in support of the Project
Purpose. This includes activities that will be implemented through
a legal agreement with a third party. It also includes any non-
agreement-based activities to be undertaken directly by USAID
staff, such as policy dialogue, organizational capacity
development, private sector engagement, and technical support in
financial management.

During the project design process, some Missions may opt to concurrently
initiate the process of designing activities described in this sub-section.
This is encouraged, where feasible, in order to minimize lead times.
However, he intention to design activities concurrently during the project
process must be included the PDP. In addition, Missions must follow
procedures defined in 201.3.4 and document the satisfaction of relevant
pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) and instrument-specific
requirements.

Often, the Mission will not be able to anticipate all activities over the life of
the project in the initial iteration of this sub-section. If a new agreement-
based activity is proposed after the initial [PAD] is approved, the Mission
must amend the [PAD] to include it (see 201.3.3.16 regarding
amendments to the [PAD]).

● Project Management Approach: This subsection defines the roles and

responsibilities of Mission staff during project implementation and any
supportive management approaches to facilitate greater collaboration and
integration. The approach should describe the role of the Project Manager
(see 201.3.3.14), including its relationship to the DO Team Leader (if
applicable), the roles of CORs/AORs/other managers of activities,
technical office directors, and staff from other relevant offices. It may also
describe approaches to support inter-office collaboration, stakeholder

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 69

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
engagement, and coordination between implementing partners, among
other approaches. If the capacity of key Mission offices needs to be
expanded, this section should provide a plan for building that capacity.

For additional guidance, see ADS 201sac, Project Management and

Implementation Plan Template.

Project MEL Plan: This section describes how the Project Team plans to collect,
organize, analyze, or apply learning gained from monitoring and evaluation data
and other sources. In preparing the required Project MEL Plan, the Mission
should review the Mission’s PMP.

The Project MEL Plan must be developed during the project design process and
updated during project implementation. At a minimum, the initial plan must
include:

● Monitoring: This subsection provides a description of how the Project

Team will monitor progress toward planned results and how it will monitor
conditions outside the control of the project that may affect
implementation. It must include:

- At least one performance indicator to monitor progress toward

achievement of the Project Purpose, as well as other key project
performance indicators to monitor progress toward achievement
of significant and relevant expected project outcomes below the
Project Purpose that are necessary for managing the project;

- Baselines and end-of-project targets for each performance

indicator included in the Project MEL Plan, or a plan for
collecting baselines and setting targets;

- A description of any other planned efforts for monitoring

progress toward achievement of intended project outcomes
(e.g., site visits, key stakeholders interviews, periodic qualitative
monitoring reports, etc.).

- A description of any context monitoring efforts (including specific

context indicators) for monitoring assumptions and/or risks in
the operational context that are outside the project’s control and
could have a significant effect on project outcomes.

● Evaluation: This subsection provides a summary description of

performance or impact evaluations that will be conducted during or after
implementation of the project, including both required and non-required

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 70

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
evaluations. It must also identify and describe any evaluations that will be
conducted to fulfill evaluation requirements described in 201.3.5.13. It is
particularly important that expected impact evaluations be planned at this
stage to ensure that relevant activities being evaluated are designed to
accommodate parallel implementation of the evaluation.

In developing the project evaluation plan, Missions should consider not

only evaluations of individual activities, but also evaluations salient to
overall project management. Such evaluations may address, for instance:

- The project’s theory of change;

- Issues that cut across activities;

- Local ownership and sustainability of results achieved after the

end of projects or activities; and

- The extent to which projects or supportive activities have

transformed gender norms and reduced gender gaps for men
and women across diverse groups.

This sub-section should also describe situations that would serve as

a trigger for an unplanned performance evaluation, e.g., under-
performing indicators or changes in project assumptions or risks.

● Learning: This subsection describes how the Project Team will generate
and apply new knowledge and learning during project implementation. It
describes gaps in knowledge identified as part of project design and
outlines a plan to fill those gaps and generate useful and actionable
insights to inform implementation. The learning plan should reflect relevant
information from the CLA plan in the Mission PMP. A plan for using
monitoring data and evaluations and for implementing practical activities
or steps for exploring knowledge gaps—such as through evaluations,
periodic partner meetings, learning networks, pilot activities, use of
monitoring data, and/or topical communities of practice—should also be
described, as well as how the project will apply learning to manage
adaptively.

Missions and Washington OUs must also consider funding requirements

for monitoring, evaluation, and learning efforts outside of programmatic
activities and account for them accordingly in the Financial Plan.

See How-To Note: Project Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan for additional
guidance.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 71

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Project Financial Plan: This section presents a high-level financial plan, by
fiscal year and by activity, based on the best available information at the time of
developing the [PAD]. More detailed cost estimates or budgets for each activity,
using more rigorous techniques, will be required before an activity can proceed to
solicitation or agreement. All resources, including the anticipated match from
assistance awards, partner country government counterparts, private sector
contributions, other donors, etc., should be included if they are relevant to the
project. In addition, the plan should account for any program-funded project
management costs, including costs for monitoring, evaluation, and learning not
included in other programmatic activities (see ADS 201sab, Project Financial
Plan Template).

B. Required [PAD] Annexes

Project Logic Model: This annex presents a logic model—a graphic or visual
display of the project’s theory of change—to show the logical relationships
between what the project will do and the changes it expects to affect. The logic
model is not intended to be an exact representation of the theory of change, but
a simplified snapshot or approximation to be used for purposes of planning,
implementation, performance monitoring, and communication. As such, the
model is often presented on one page so that it is easy to see the theory and the
linkages. A widely used type of logic model is the logical framework matrix, or
LogFrame; however, Missions are encouraged to use the logic model type the
best fits their needs (see How-To Note: Developing a Project Logic Model
(and its Associated Theory of Change for additional guidance).

Approval for Use of Partner Government Systems (AUPGS) (applicable for

G2G activities): This Annex approves the use of partner government systems.
The AUPGS documents the due diligence requirements and associated fiduciary
risk mitigation plan for using G2G, establishes USAID’s and the partner
government’s fiduciary risk management strategy, and provides guidelines for
implementation.

C. Minimum Criteria for Activity Approval

As described in 201.3.3.9, the [PAD] provides approval to proceed with the

design of activities for which certain minimum planning criteria have been
satisfied. These criteria are described below. Activities approved for design in the
[PAD] must also comply with policies and procedures in 201.3.4. The process
required for clearance of such documents is at the Mission’s discretion; however,
Missions document the satisfaction of pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation)
requirements.

The minimum criteria for approving activities in the [PAD] are:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 72

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
(1) A brief activity description (typically 1–2 paragraphs), which should
include the activity purpose and other key outcomes or performance
targets to be achieved.

(2) A brief description of how the activity purpose and other intended activity
outcomes will support achievement of the Project Purpose.

(3) Preliminary identification of instrument, to be identified in consultation

with the CO/AO, RLO and/or Controller, based on the purpose of the
activity and the types of tools that are likely needed to achieve activity
outcomes (e.g., A&A awards with a local or international partner,
Development Credit Authority (DCA) guarantees, public-private
partnerships, a G2G agreement, pooled funds, trilateral cooperation,
etc.). The final decision on A&A instruments must be undertaken in
accordance with ADS 304 and 201.3.4.5. In order to minimize pipelines
and delays, the Mission should assess and review absorptive capacity if
contemplating awards to local entities.

(4) A preliminary budget estimate, which will provide a guiding, but

non-binding, parameter for the more detailed Independent
Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), in the case of acquisition
awards, or budgets for many other types of assistance to be
developed during activity design. The estimated cost of the activity
will also give an early indication of the potential need for a Senior
Obligation Alignment Review (SOAR) (see ADS 300).

For G2G activities, Missions must also complete additional analyses and
documentation within the [PAD] to attain the approval required to proceed with
the preparation and negotiation of a G2G agreement. Requirements include: 1)
the PFMRAF Stage 2 Risk Assessment; 2) the AUPGS; and 3) other analyses
defined in Section 7031 of the annual Appropriations Act, such as an assessment
of the implementing agency or ministry’s necessary technical, financial, and
management capabilities. Since the requirements under Section 7031 may
change annually, the Project Team must consult with their RLO for updated
requirements.

These analyses often require a substantial level of detail about the outcomes
expected from the activity and the entity(ies) who will be implementing that
activity. Therefore, it may be reasonable for a Mission to defer completion of
these analyses until after initial [PAD] approval and subsequently amend the
[PAD] when these analyses are completed.

D. [PAD] Review and Approval

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 73

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
The final review of the [PAD] should follow the same procedures used for the
PDP in Phase One of the project design process. The [PAD] should be circulated
to relevant Mission offices and reviewed in a meeting chaired by the Mission
Director or designee. In most cases, the Program Office will orchestrate the
review meeting and draft an Issues Paper based on input from involved Mission
offices. Key issues to consider could include:

● Does the theory of change present a plausible, feasible, and testable

approach for achieving the Project Purpose?

● To what extent does the Management and Implementation Plan, including

its family of proposed activities, present a realistic and operational
approach to put the project design into action?

● To what extent does the project approach support local priorities, leverage
local resources, and rely on local actors to implement activities?

● Is the Project MEL Plan sufficiently defined to facilitate adaptive

management supported by continuous learning?

● Is the total USAID project budget realistic given budget projections in the
CDCS and other guiding criteria, and is it sufficient to implement the
design and achieve the Project Purpose?

After adjustments are made to the draft [PAD] as a result of the Mission review,
the Program Office or their designee must prepare a [PAD] Approval
Memorandum for Mission Director approval authorizing the team to move from
the planning stage to implementation. Approval does not reserve or commit funds
(see Project Approval Memorandum Template for a customizable example).

The Approval Memorandum should be brief and include the following:

● A brief statement of the Project Purpose, the completion date of the

project, and the total USAID project budget.

● A list of activities that are “approved” based on satisfaction of the required

minimum planning criteria in 201.3.3.12. Approval authorizes the Mission
to proceed with the design of activities in accordance with 201.3.4.

● Any additional instructions to Mission staff on the conduct of subsequent

activity design processes, such as questions to be answered or factors to
be taken into consideration. This memo may also provide additional
guidance on processes, clearances, and/or documentation for supportive
activities required by Mission management.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 74

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● The [PAD], as an attachment.

The [PAD] Approval Memorandum must record final clearances from the RLO,
the CO/AO (if A&A actions are contemplated), and the Controller, as well as
involved technical office(s) and the Program Office. The Mission Director (or
other official delegated the authority to approve the project) must sign the
memorandum. The Mission may opt to add additional clearances at its discretion.

E. Requirement to Post Approved [PAD] on ProgramNet

Missions and Washington OUs must post all approved [PADs] to the Project
Design Working Group (PDWG) on ProgramNet. Missions and Washington OUs
should also post key analyses, such as the gender analysis. The PDWG can be
accessed at https://programnet.usaid.gov/working-groups/project-design-
working-group.

The PDWG is a group of Project Design practitioners within USAID, and the
PDWG platform provides a protected space to post [PADs] and associated
analyses and to share good practices with other colleagues in the group. Due to
the procurement-sensitive nature of some information in the [PAD], the
membership of this working group is limited to three POCs in each Mission and
Washington OU as designated by the OU’s Supervisory Program Officer. The
POCs are responsible for sharing relevant project design information and
examples with others in their Mission or Washington OU on a need-to-know
basis while protecting procurement sensitive information.

201.3.3.14 Project Implementation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Project implementation should be a cross-Mission effort and not be limited to the

technical office(s). Missions have the authority to organize staff to most efficiently carry
out project implementation within certain common parameters.

The Mission Director must designate a Project Manager or other responsible person to
provide overall guidance and direction at the project level. The Project Manager may be
an Office Director, Team Leader, or COR/AOR, among other options. This is a function
in the Mission and not a formal supervisory position.

Duties and responsibilities of the Project Manager and associated team include, but are
not limited to:

A. Oversight

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 75

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Providing guidance on how activities can work in the most complementary
and synergistic manner. Joint work planning is one approach for supporting
this process.

● Working collaboratively across the Mission (including, if applicable, with the

DO Team Leader) to ensure that the project is contributing to CDCS
objectives.

● Oversees implementation of the Project Management and Implementation

Plan and Project Financial Plan.

B. Monitoring and Evaluation

● Ensuring the continuous collection and analysis of performance and

contextual data to monitor progress toward the Project Purpose and detect
changes in the operating context.

● Working with activity managers (CORs/AORs, etc.) to ensure that associated

Activity MEL Plans are consistent with and meet the data collection needs of
the Project MEL Plan.

● Updating the Project MEL Plan and PMP as appropriate to reflect changes or
updates to project-level baselines, targets, or indicators.

● Collaborating with the Program Office to plan and implement evaluations of

activities within a project, evaluations of issues that cut across activities, and
whole-of-project evaluations.

C. Learning and Adapting

● Facilitating collaborative learning, both internally in the Mission and among

implementing partners, through periodic partner meetings, peer assists,
learning networks, and/or topical communities of practice, among other
means.

● Working with Agency experts to learn about new development practices and
research so that work on the project always incorporates the best available
approaches.

● Utilizing a diverse mix of approaches to engage local stakeholders

contributing to project outcomes, not just for their knowledge and experience,
but also for their understanding of networks, marketing expertise, distribution
channels, and financial capital, among other benefits.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 76

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Conducting targeted analyses and filling knowledge gaps as needed for
improved decision-making.

● Using project- and activity-level monitoring, evaluation, and learning data to

inform course corrections as needed. In many cases, this will require working
with AORs/CORs, COs/AOs, and other activity managers to determine the
most feasible approach for making adjustments (e.g., through technical
direction, agreement modifications, or work plan changes).

● Periodically updating the [PAD], including the theory of change/logic model,

the Project MEL Plan, and the Project Management and Implementation Plan,
as appropriate (see 201.3.3.16).

● Facilitating other amendments to the [PAD] as required in 201.3.3.16.

In addition to these day-to-day roles, it is strongly recommended that Project Managers

organize periodic project reviews to reflect on project progress. Like Mission-wide
portfolio reviews, project reviews should be treated as prompts for decision-making to
help ensure project progress.

201.3.3.15 Expirations and Extensions

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Projects expire on the date specified in the [PAD] Approval Memorandum, whether as
originally approved or as amended. Any extension of a project greater than six months
requires an amendment to the [PAD] Approval Memorandum.

In many cases, the life-of-project will not coincide with the life-of-CDCS; however,
projects typically should not exceed ten years. In addition, Missions must assess its
existing project portfolio as part of developing the subsequent CDCS to verify alignment
with the new CDCS RF. In some cases, Missions will need to adjust or realign existing
projects, or develop new projects, to ensure support for the new RF.

A project may be closed out before its designated end date if it does not align with the
new RF or if a new project is being designed to replace it. In this case, activities under
the former project should be incorporated into the new project if they contribute to the
new Project Purpose.

201.3.3.16 Amending and Updating the [PAD]

Effective Date: 10/29/2018

A. Amendments

The [PAD] must be amended through an Action Memorandum approved by the

Mission Director or designee under the following circumstances:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 77

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

(1) An activity implemented through a legal instrument that was not anticipated
in the [PAD] is added, or an activity contained in the [PAD] is eliminated. For
added activities, the amendment must satisfy the minimum criteria for
activity approval described in 201.3.3.13.

(2) The estimated total amount of USAID funding for the project increases or
decreases by a significant amount, as determined by the Mission.

(3) The estimated completion date of the project requires an extension of more
than six months (e.g., when the end date of a new activity being added
extends beyond the life of the [PAD]).

(4) Significant changes are made to the statement of Project Purpose, as

determined by the Mission.

(5) Other changes deemed substantial by the Mission.

The process and documentation required for executing amendments, including

further definition of triggers for amendment, if applicable, are at the Mission’s
discretion within certain common parameters. The process should be streamlined,
efficient, and clearly articulated through a Mission/ Bureau Order or a Mission/
Bureau Notice. The Action Memorandum itself should be brief and limited in scope;
the decision whether to modify the underlying [PAD] is at the Mission’s discretion.
Approved Action Memorandums should be assigned a unique identification or
control number.

For additional guidance on when and how to amend a [PAD], see Technical Note:
PAD Updates and Amendments.

B. Updates

Certain components of the [PAD] should be informally kept up-to-date as

circumstances change and lessons are learned. These components include but
are not limited to: 1) the Project MEL Plan, particularly around project-level
indicators, baselines, and targets; 2) the theory of change or logic model; 3) the
Project Management Approach; and 4) the Risk Mitigation Plan for G2G activities.
Although updates may be made at any time, it may be reasonable for Missions to
plan to systematically document changes or updates to [PADs] following project
reviews.

Updates may be captured through simple revisions or a note to the file. Unless
determined otherwise by the Mission, updates do not need to be formally cleared
or approved by Mission management. However, the Project Team may need to

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 78

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
inform the Program Office and/or other cognizant office(s) of certain revisions,
particularly changes to the Project MEL Plan that may trigger updates to the PMP.

For additional guidance on when and how to update a [PAD], see Technical Note:
PAD Updates and Amendments.

201.3.3.17 Close Out

Effective Date: 06/20/2017

Within 90 days of the end of a project, Missions must summarize, in writing, progress
toward achievement of the Project Purpose and end-of-project targets for key project
performance indicators. Where the deviation between target result(s) and actual
result(s) is significant (a deviation of 10 percent or more), the document should provide
an explanation as to the Project Team’s best understanding, based on existing
materials and sources, of why this differential occurred. Reasons may include but are
not limited to:

(1) Errors underlying the theory of change revealed over the course of
implementation;

(2) Shifts in the operating context;

(3) Internal shifts in funding or priorities that required a re-scoping of the project
design; and/or

(4) An explanation of why end-of-status indicators did not adequately capture results
actually achieved.

The close-out note should also provide a bibliography of evaluations, analyses, and
other documents that capture key learnings over the course of the project. It may also
highlight key lessons learned to be applied to subsequent country strategies and/or
project designs. Clearances and approvals are at the Mission’s discretion.

201.3.4 Activity Design and Implementation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Activity design is the process by which USAID further defines how it will implement an
activity contributing to a project (or in limited cases described in 201.3.3.3, a standalone
activity not contributing to a project). An activity carries out an intervention or set of
interventions, typically through an implementing mechanism such as a contract,
assistance program, or partnership with another U.S. Government Agency, the partner
country government, other donors and development assistance agencies, NGOs, and
the private sector. It may also be an intervention undertaken directly by USAID staff that
contributes to achieving a Project Purpose such as policy dialogue, capacity building
services, or coordination with stakeholders. For activities implemented through an

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 79

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
implementing mechanism or legal agreement, the activity design process typically
culminates in a solicitation or the negotiation of an agreement.

Consistent with the principles of the Program Cycle defined in 201.3.1.2, activities
should not only be designed to achieve clear and measurable results, but also should
be aimed at strengthening local systems so that local actors continue to sustain key
results after the activity ends. USAID assistance should be designed to align with the
priorities of local actors; leverage local resources; and increase local implementation
over time to sustain positive changes. While highly encouraged (where practical and
feasible), use of local systems is not just limited to direct funding of partner
governments or local NGOs; it also includes building the capacity of partner government
service providers or local NGOs, leveraging USAID’s influence and convening power,
facilitating local service delivery, and mobilizing domestic resources, among other
tactics.

In addition to promoting local ownership, building opportunities for adaptive

management into the design and implementation of activities is also critical to the
success of USAID programming. Activities should be designed with sufficient flexibility
so that they may be adjusted in response to emerging opportunities and knowledge.
Activities should also explicitly resource efforts to fill knowledge gaps and strengthen
the evidence base, as well as promote collaborative learning among implementing
partners to inform adaptations during implementation.

Pursuant to 201.3.3.3, there are cases in which an activity may be a standalone

mechanism and may not be associated with a project. This will typically be the case for
Washington OUs. In these cases, the activity design and implementation guidance in
this chapter still applies to ensure that activities meet planning, legal (including pre-
obligation), and instrument-specific requirements prior to solicitation or agreement.

201.3.4.1 Mission and Washington Operating Unit Roles in Activity Design and
Implementation
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Activity design is an Agency and Mission-wide effort. In Washington, activity design is

typically a collaborative effort between the lead technical office, the relevant Mission (if
the country of implementation has been determined), the bureau program office,
M/OAA, GC, the BEO, and cross-cutting advisors, such as for gender or climate
change, where appropriate and as available.

For Mission-led design, the following functions are critical:

A. Washington Operating Units

Washington OUs provide guidance to Missions on policies and priorities;

support Missions with technical expertise; ensure the implementation of

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 80

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Agency-wide sector strategies and initiatives; and provide field support, as
requested, to Missions in support of the functions outlined in this section,
including for analyses and the collection of other evidence needed to develop
activity designs.

B. Mission Program Office

The Mission Program Office facilitates activity designs as necessary; reviews

and provides guidance on activity design procedures, pre-obligation
requirements, and the clearance process for activity packages; confirms that
activities are aligned with their associated project; manages the budget
planning process to ensure funds availability for activities; encourages
collaboration between teams and between activities, projects, and the
strategy; advises on non-A&A mechanisms and facilitates the preparation of
documentation for such instruments; provides guidance on Mission
procedures/policies for monitoring, evaluation and learning to ensure activities
and projects are supporting project outcomes; manages evaluations;
coordinates and guides the Mission portfolio review process; and oversees
the Mission’s development outreach efforts associated with communicating
activity results to key stakeholders in the partner country and in Washington.

C. Mission Technical Offices

Technical offices typically take a lead role in designing activities (including, in

the case of A&A activities, by providing a staff member to serve as the Activity
Planner); collaborate with the partner country government and development
actors in their technical sector to ensure alignment of activities with local
priorities; assume activity management roles (COR/AOR, etc.) to carry out
responsibilities specified in signed designation letters; and adaptively manage
activities in response to learning and evidence to support achievement of
project outcomes.

D. Mission’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance

The Mission’s Office of Acquisition and Assistance (OAA), serves as a

business advisor providing guidance on how Missions can achieve intended
outcomes with the Agency's broad range of A&A; reviews supporting
solicitation documents prepared by the Planner and makes the final
determination on the selection of instrument in the case of A&A instruments;
ensures that Statements of Work (SOWs), Statements of Objectives (SOOs),
Program Descriptions, and other documents associated with A&A are
consistent with the selected type of instrument; solicits, negotiates, awards,
and administers A&A awards; and advises CORs/AORs during
implementation on how programmatic adjustments can be made where

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 81

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
necessary to enable adaptive management, all in accordance with their
delegated authority and within applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.

E. Mission’s Office of Financial Management

The Mission’s Office of Financial Management (OFM) oversees all financial

management matters relating to Mission activities; plans and conducts pre-
award financial management risk assessments for agreements with the
partner country government and/or local organizations; reviews or provides
guidance in developing cost estimates, where applicable; provides advice or
assistance to strengthen the sustainable financial management capacity of
the public and private sectors during implementation; maintains an integrated
financial management system that complies with applicable requirements of
Agency financial management systems; organizes periodic financial reviews;
and monitors the financial execution of the Mission budget in relation to actual
expenditures.

F. Mission’s Executive Office

The Mission’s Executive Office (EXO) is often responsible for the

procurement of small activities, goods, and services under the simplified
acquisition threshold, such as analyses, assessments, and other short-term
support; oversees USAID staffing needs that support activity design and
implementation; maintains relevant Mission Orders or Mission Notices to
supplement this chapter’s policies and procedures; and provides
implementing partners with advice and guidance to help them operate
effectively in the partner country.

G. Resident Legal Officer

The Mission’s Resident Legal Officer (RLO) provides legal counsel and
advice on a broad range of matters related to activity design and
implementation; guides the team in satisfying all relevant legal (including pre-
obligation) requirements and documenting such; and guides the process of
negotiating and finalizing agreements with partner country governments and
Public International Organizations (PIOs), as applicable.

H. Mission Environmental Officer

The Mission Environmental Officer (MEO) assists and advises activity design
staff on how to conduct activity level environmental reviews, including those
deferred in the project-level review, pursuant to Section 216 of Title 22 of the
CFR and ADS 304; submits documents required by Section 216 of Title 22 of
the CFR with their written determination for review and concurrence to the

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 82

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
appropriate BEO in Washington; and advises on how to effectively monitor
implementation of approved mitigation measures.

I. Mission Gender Advisor/Point of Contact

The Mission Gender Advisor and/or Gender Point of Contact (POC), where
applicable, provides guidance to staff identified in the Mission Order on
Gender (see ADS 205) to ensure that findings and recommendations from the
project-level gender analysis and any supplementary gender analyses are
integrated in meaningful ways into the activity design and reflected in
solicitation packages; ensures that activity-level performance indicators are,
as appropriate, sex-disaggregated and/or gender-sensitive; collaborates with
activity managers during implementation to monitor, evaluate, and learn from
activities with regard to their impact on gender integration; and advises on
any course corrections that could further close gender gaps and promote
gender equality and female empowerment.

J. Crosscutting Advisors and Points of Contact in the Mission

Cross-cutting technical advisors and/or POCs include but not limited to the
Climate Integration Lead, the Mission Engineer, the Mission Economist,
sectoral focal points, and others as appropriate. Advisors and/or POCs take
an active role in conducting, facilitating, or reviewing mandatory and non-
mandatory analyses to provide insights about technical issues related to their
respective areas of responsibility; and provide advice, guidance and follow-up
on respective issues in the design and implementation of activities.

201.3.4.2 Applicability of Guidance for Activity Design

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The activity design guidance in this section is applicable to both activities approved
through a project design process as well as standalone activities, whether in Missions or
in Washington OUs. However, there are specific exemptions from the activity design
guidance in this section for certain categories of activities as defined below.

Emergency Food Assistance, Disaster Assistance, and Transition Assistance:

Certain activities targeted at preventing, responding to, recovering from, and
transitioning from crisis are exempt. These activities include:

(1) Natural and man-made disaster assistance managed by the Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA),

(2) Activities managed by the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) or activities funded
by the Complex Crisis Fund (CCF) that are managed by Missions, and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 83

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
(3) Emergency food assistance managed by the Office of Food for Peace (FFP).

Although these activities are exempt from the activity design guidance, USAID
encourages Missions and Washington OUs to incorporate these into projects wherever
feasible to facilitate better integration of with long-term development aid. Mission and
Washington OUs may use OU-specific processes and documentation to approve these
activities. However, pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) requirements must still be
reviewed and met for these activities.

Cash Transfers, Sovereign Loan Guarantees, and Enterprise Funds: The following
types of activities are exempt from the activity design process in this section: 1) cash
transfers designed to encourage policy reforms and provide balance of payments or
budget support; 2) sovereign loan guarantees designed to provide host countries with
access to affordable financing from international capital markets; and 3) enterprise
funds that make direct equity investments and/or loans and other financial products to
private enterprises. Missions and Washington OUs may use OU-specific processes and
documentation to approve these activities. Although exempt from a [PAD] or AAM (see
ADS 201mai, Activity Approval Memorandum Template), the OU must document
compliance with pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) requirements.

Activities Implemented by USAID Staff: In the case of activities that are carried out
using USAID staff time and resources, such as policy dialogue, organizational capacity
development, or private sector engagement, the design process, oversight, and
implementation is at the Mission or Washington OU’s discretion.

201.3.4.3 Activity Design Considerations

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

Missions and Washington OUs should plan for and address as applicable the following
considerations when designing activities:

Unsolicited Proposals and Applications: Unsolicited proposals and applications

should be considered when they support a Mission’s CDCS or a Washington OU’s
operations. The activity solicitation process described in 201.3.4.5 does not apply to
unsolicited proposals and applications because the activity is not designed and solicited
by the Mission or Washington OU. Missions and Washington OUs should work closely
with their CO/AO when considering awarding activities resulting from unsolicited
proposals and applications to follow the required steps for award (see ADS 302 and
ADS 303 for additional guidance on unsolicited proposals and applications).

Activities with a Counter-Trafficking in Persons (C-TIP) Component: The

Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 requires USAID to share
information on all planned activities containing a significant anti-trafficking component
with the interagency Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) before a final Agency

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 84

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
decision is made and after an award is made (see Mandatory Sharing of Projects or
Activities with a Significant Counter Trafficking-in-Persons Component to the
Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) for additional guidance).

Activities Implemented by Public International Organizations: In addition to the

program cycle guidance of this chapter, PIO activities must follow design and
implementation processes described in ADS 308, Agreements with Public
International Organizations.

Mission Concurrence for Washington- or Regional Mission/Platform-Funded and

Managed Activities: Washington Operating Units and Regional Missions/platforms
may fund and manage activities implemented in countries under the jurisdiction of a
USAID Mission. However, before initiating implementation of such activities, the
WOU/RM must obtain concurrence from the responsible Mission Director, or their
designee. When possible, concurrence should be obtained during activity design. If the
country is not identified at the time of design, concurrence must be obtained as early as
possible, whether it be during the solicitation process or prior to the start of
implementation. Both the Washington OU or the Regional Mission/platform and the
bilateral Mission must document concurrence. In addition, these activities should ideally
support results in the bilateral Mission’s strategy (see Process for Obtaining Mission
Concurrence for Washington and Regional Mission Funded Activities for additional
information on this requirement).

Approaches that Support Innovation, Co-Creation, and/or Co-Design: As much as

possible, Missions use solicitation approaches that support innovation, co-creation,
and/or co-design – such as BAAs or APSs. The design process for the activities that
result from these co-creation efforts could differ from the design process outlined in this
section because the OU engages with the partner throughout the process of designing
and awarding the activity. Missions and Washington OUs should work closely with their
COs/AOs and Program Office to follow required steps for activities that use a co-design
approach. (See Co-Creation Discussion Note for additional information on these
approaches.)

Activities that Include Construction: Missions should identify construction activities

and sub-activities in the activity design and confirm that the design approach is
compliant with USAID’s Construction Policy (ADS 303maw, USAID Implementation of
Construction Activities). For these activities, the activity design must demonstrate that
the Mission has a plan to provide adequate resources for the management and
oversight of associated engineering and construction activities. In addition, pursuant to
Section 611(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended, Mission
Directors, Country Representatives, or other Principal Officers in country must certify,
for any construction activity estimated to cost in excess of $1,000,000, the financial and
human resources capability of the host country to effectively maintain and utilize that
activity (See Additional Guidance for 611(e) Certification Involving Construction
Activities.)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 85

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Consideration of U.S. Small Business: When the planned implementation

mechanism is a contract, Missions should consider incorporating solicitation
approaches that encourage the inclusion of U.S. small businesses as prime contractors
and subcontractors. Guidance on how to include U.S. small businesses in activity
design can be found in the Small Business Programs (SBP) Manual (see Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) intranet site).

Activities with an Information Technology (IT) Component:

1. IT Investments for Agency Use. Pursuant to the Federal Information

Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), ADS 509, Management and
Oversight of Agency Information Technology (IT) Resources, and ADS 300,
Agency Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Planning, Missions and
Washington-based Operating Units must request approval from M/CIO for IT
components intended for Agency use in any planned projects or
activities. Examples of IT for Agency use include a monitoring and evaluation
system for program evaluation and reporting, a prepositioning application for
managing food delivery to host countries, and a tracking and management tool
used for processing FSN job applications.
Project and activity planners must engage M/CIO as soon as an IT component
for Agency use is identified. If IT for Agency use is identified in the acquisition
planning stage, planners must obtain approval from M/CIO prior to submitting the
requisition into Global Acquisition and Assistance System (GLAAS). The
requirement for M/CIO’ approval also applies during the performance of the
contract as IT may be identified after the contract is awarded. Submit requests
for M/CIO approval for IT components to [email protected].

More information about Agency policy and procedures for acquiring IT resources
can be found in ADS 509 and AAPD 16-02 Revised.

2. IT Investments for Host Countries. IT to be procured for host countries does

not require approval by M/CIO. Examples of IT procured for host countries
include health information management systems procured for the government of
a host country and personal computers procured for schools in another host
country.

Program Assistance: Program Assistance, historically known as Non-Project

Assistance, is a generalized resource transfer to the recipient government based on
meeting defined benchmarks or performance indicators that are not based on cost. With
the exception of cash transfers and sovereign loan guarantees, Program Assistance
must be approved through PADs or, where applicable, an AAM (see ADS 201mai,
Activity Approval Memorandum Template). Guidance on using Program Assistance

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 86

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
is evolving. Therefore, it is recommended that Missions that are considering using
Program Assistance consult with PPL/SPP prior to initiating the design process.

201.3.4.4 Approval for the Activity Design Process

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The approval process to proceed with activity design, which culminates in activity
solicitation or agreement negotiation, depends on if the activity is part of a project or is
being approved as a standalone activity. The procedures for each scenario are as
follows:

Activities approved through a [PAD] Approval Memorandum, or Amendment

Thereto:

As described in 201.3.3.8, most activities at USAID are approved for design through a
[PAD] Approval Memorandum or amendment thereto, based on satisfaction of certain
minimum planning criteria. During the project design process, some Missions may opt to
concurrently initiate the process of designing subsidiary activities to minimize lead
times. If the Project Design Team plans to design a project and its related activities
concurrently, the concurrent design process should be discussed and included in the
PDP. Once the GLAAS requisition package (for A&A activities) or the draft agreement
(for G2G activities) is completed, it must proceed for clearance through the Mission’s or
Washington OU’s clearance process.

OUs, working with their RLO/GC, AO/CO and Program Office, may also opt to tailor
additional processes, such as check-ins or concept reviews. This may be appropriate
and necessary, for example, where there is a significant lapse of time between [PAD]
approval and preparation of solicitation/agreement documents or where details
developed subsequent to the [PAD] require more meaningful review of the proposed
activity.

Standalone activities approved through an AAM: In addition, as described in

201.3.3.2, there are certain categories of activities that are not required to follow the
project design process. Activities that are waived or exempt from the project design
process must be approved through an AAM (see ADS 201mai, Activity Approval
Memorandum Template). This includes many activities funded and managed by
Washington OUs that are not associated with a “project” as defined in this chapter. For
activities that are not part of a project, Missions and Washington OUs should determine
the process and parameters to enable activity design teams to proceed with an activity
design. For example, the Mission or Washington OU may use an activity concept review
process for standalone activities. Once the GLAAS requisition package (for A&A
activities) or the draft agreement (for G2G activities) is completed, it must proceed for
clearance through the Mission’s or Washington OU’s clearance process.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 87

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Activities approved in either the [PAD] Approval Memorandum or AAM must follow
procedures described herein to ensure that they meet legal and instrument-specific
requirements prior to finalization of award or agreement. Missions and Washington OUs
must document that pre-obligation (or pre-sub-obligation) requirements for activities
have been met and have been cleared by the RLO/GC.

201.3.4.5 Acquisition and Assistance Design Process

Effective Date: 04/18/2018

Prior to beginning the development of A&A activity design documents, the Mission or
Washington OU must identify the Activity Planner and relevant staff and stakeholders
who will support the activity design process. An Activity Planner (hereinafter the
“Planner”) must be identified at the inception of the activity design process to lead the
design, as applicable to each A&A implementing mechanism, and draft the necessary
instrument-specific documents. In order to ensure continuity from design to
implementation, it is highly recommended that the Planner be the individual who is likely
to be designated the COR/AOR.

Design of A&A implementing mechanisms is recommended to be a cross-Mission or

cross-bureau effort and not be limited to just the Planner. A multi-disciplinary team can
ensure the design of an A&A activity that can be awarded, effectively implemented,
systematically monitored, and appropriately evaluated.

There are six interrelated phases to the development of an A&A activity:

● In Step 1, the Mission or Washington OU reviews and conducts or supplements

analysis, as applicable.

● In Step 2, the Mission or Washington OU confirms the selection of instrument in

accordance with policy and procedures found in ADS 304.

● In Step 3, the Mission or Washington OU drafts the SOW, Performance Work

Statement (PWS), SOO, or Program Description (PD) according to instrument-
specific requirements.

● In Step 4, the Mission or Washington OU drafts cost estimate/budget and other

pre-solicitation documents required for inclusion in the GLAAS requisition
package.

● In Step 5, the Mission or Washington OU clears the activity design and GLAAS
requisition package through the OU’s clearance process.

● In Step 6, the Mission or Washington OU enters the requisition package into

GLAAS and solicits, negotiates, and awards the activity through an A&A process
as required in ADS 302 or ADS 303.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 88

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

These steps are not necessarily sequential or universal; they are intended only to
outline the broad process to design a typical A&A award. As noted in 201.3.3.8, some of
these activity design steps may occur concurrently with the project design process. In
addition, certain types of activities—such as partnerships with PIOs or 632(b) Inter-
Agency Transfers, among others—result in A&A awards and agreements; however, the
process differs from the process defined in these steps (see ADS 308 and ADS 306,
Interagency Agreements for additional guidance on PIO awards and Interagency
Agreements respectively).

In addition, certain A&A mechanisms allow for a more collaborative design process with
key partners and stakeholders. In these cases, the partnership often begins before the
concept has been determined and requires constant engagement with the partner
throughout the activity design and award process. When appropriate, USAID
recommends using these approaches not only to generate innovative development
solutions, but also to build the base for local ownership and sustainability of outcomes.
The steps for leveraging A&A-based partnership platforms that facilitate co-design or
co-investment, such as Global Development Alliances (GDAs), are often much more
integrated and interdependent than defined in this chapter. Missions and Washington
OUs should consult with COs/AOs for additional guidance on carrying out these
processes and ensuring that legal and regulatory requirements on Organizational
Conflict of Interest (OCI), procurement integrity, and competition are satisfied.
Modifications to this process should also be made, as appropriate, for management and
support activities that are not programmatic in nature and do not require a traditional
design process.

Step 1: Review and Conduct or Supplement Analysis

In cases where the activity supports a project and/or strategy, Missions and Washington
OUs should consolidate the findings and recommendations from related analyses and
reviews before starting to develop activity descriptions, such as SOWs, SOOs, or
Program Descriptions (PDs). Missions and Washington OUs should also review the
Project MEL Plan to determine if planned evaluations or monitoring requirements affect
activity solicitation/agreement documents.

Missions and Washington OUs should then determine whether any additional analyses
are needed to inform the activity design. This may include undertaking more in-depth
problem analysis or stakeholder analysis or gathering updated data about the specific
geographic area or target populations where the activity will be implemented to ensure
alignment with local priorities. For acquisition awards, this includes market research
pursuant to FAR Part 10 and ADS 300.

Potential sources of information include:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 89

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Sector-specific assessments, reports, studies, or data collected by other
organizations or researchers;

● Monitoring data, periodic reports (quarterly, semi-annual or annual), or

evaluations of relevant and prior activities or projects, including those
implemented by other donors;

● Site visits, focus groups, or consultations with key stakeholders and potential
beneficiaries; and/or

● Opportunities for co-design with key stakeholders, such as co-creation

workshops and Requests for Information (RFI), when feasible and after close
consultation with the Mission or Washington OU’s CO/AO (for acquisition, see
FAR 15.201).

In cases where an activity is a standalone programmatic activity not associated with a

project, Missions and Washington OUs must conduct the three mandatory analyses
described in section 201.3.3.12 (environment, gender, and climate risk) to inform the
design. In cases where the activity supports a project and/or strategy, Missions and
Washington OUs must incorporate relevant findings from mandatory analyses
conducted during the project design process (see 201.3.3.12) as follows:

● Gender analysis: The Mission or Washington OU should use the gender analysis
conducted during the project design process to provide insights about key gender
gaps and needs for increased gender equality related to the activity. Pursuant to
ADS 205, if the [PAD’s] gender analysis is framed at too high a level to be useful
for making decisions about how to design the individual subordinate activities,
then supplementary gender analysis must be conducted at the activity level. Per
ADS 205, the Mission or Washington OU must reflect the findings of the gender
analysis conducted for a project or activity in multiple sections of the solicitation.

● Environmental analysis: The decision to meet environmental analysis

requirements depends on the level of information available during the project
design process. In some cases, the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) may
be completed for all activities in a PAD, while in other cases the IEE
determination may be deferred to the activity design process. The Mission or
Washington OU must determine the appropriate timing for completing the IEE. In
all cases, the Mission or Washington OU should consult closely with their MEO
or BEO and must complete a threshold determination prior to award and prior to
the implementation of the activity (see ADS 204).

● Climate-Risk Analysis: Climate risk assessment must be conducted at the activity

level if: 1) a project- and strategy-level assessment was not completed, which
includes cases where the activity does not fall under a project; or 2)
moderate/high risks were identified in the strategy- or project-level assessment,

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 90

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
and the design team determined that information about the project’s approach
and/or the relevant climate change impacts was not adequate to assess or
address the risks. In this case, climate risk management at the activity level
should build upon the results of climate risk management done at the strategy or
project level. The activity environmental compliance analysis (e.g., IEE) must
include a summary of the approach to activity-level climate risk management and
major results (see requirements in ADS 201mal, Climate Risk Management for
Projects and Activities).

Although an activity logic model is not required, findings from analyses may also inform
an activity logic model that summarizes key activity elements and clarifies intended
outcomes and linkages to the project to which it contributes, if applicable. In some
cases—for example, when the Mission or Washington OU doesn’t have enough
information to develop a technical approach for an activity, aims to invite innovative
solutions, or when the aim is to support an assistance recipient’s program—the Mission
or Washington OU may request that the offeror or applicant provide a logic model in
their response to the solicitation. The Planner should work closely with the CO/AO in
developing an activity logic model because the process may affect or clarify the
selection of the instrument.

Step 2: Confirm the Selection of Instrument

For A&A activities, the CO/AO reviews the Planner’s recommendation and supporting
documents that justify the selection of instrument and makes the final determination on
the selection of instrument (see ADS 304 and Implementing Mechanism Matrix for
guidance on the selection of instrument for A&A awards).

If an award to an NGO is anticipated, Missions and Washington OUs should engage

proactively with the CO/AO to consider the requirement for a pre-award survey as
described in ADS 303, Grants and Cooperative Agreements to Non-Governmental
Organizations. Findings from the survey may result in specific conditions in the grant or
cooperative agreement. This may, among other things, affect the ultimate activity
budget.

If not done earlier as part of the project design process, Missions and Washington OUs
must incorporate the activity into the A&A Plan and should validate the proper listing in
the Business Forecast, as described in ADS 300. If the activity includes construction, it
must be identified as such in the A&A plan. In addition, Missions and Washington OUs
must perform acquisition planning and conduct market research (see FAR Part 10) at
the individual acquisition level for acquisition awards (see ADS 300 and FAR Part 7.102
for guidance on the Individual Acquisition Plan).

Step 3: Draft the Activity Description

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 91

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
After confirming the selection of instrument, Missions and Washington OUs develop the
activity description based on the type of instrument selected and the consideration of
the underlying context, an assessment of the problem, and a review of other analyses
or evaluations relevant to the activity. The approach to drafting the activity description
will differ depending on the type of acquisition or assistance mechanism. Considering
the rapidly changing and complex contexts in which many USAID programs operate, the
activity design process should consider the need to adjust programming and
approaches that enable course correction during implementation. If flexibility is
important to the success of an activity, opportunities for learning and adapting should be
built into activity solicitation documents and subsequent awards.

In order to ensure that implementing partners have as much information as possible

about the project to which the activity contributes, Missions and Washington OUs
should provide the relevant project’s logic model that illustrates the project’s theory of
change as an attachment to solicitations and/or awards.

If the activity is to be the subject of an evaluation, particularly an impact evaluation,

information about the planned evaluation should be included in the solicitation.

A. Acquisition

Depending on the type of acquisition instrument selected, the solicitation will follow
the requirements of an SOW, PWS, or SOO. Missions and Washington OUs
should use SOOs as much as possible, but should consult closely with their COs
to understand requirements for each type of solicitation (see FAR Part 11, ADS
300, and ADS 302, USAID Direct Contracting).

Statement of Work (SOW): The SOW describes the technical requirements for
the work to be performed or the services to be rendered. It defines the respective
responsibilities of USAID and the contractor and provides objective measures so
that both USAID and the contractor will know when the work is complete and
payment is justified.

Performance Work Statement (PWS): The PWS is defined in FAR Part 2.101
and its use must meet the criteria in FAR Part 37.602. It is a type of SOW found in
performance-based acquisitions that describes the required results in clear,
specific and objective terms with measurable outcomes. A PWS must describe
work in terms of outcomes or results, rather than how the work is to be
accomplished. It enables assessment of work performance against measurable
performance standards and relies on the use of measurable performance
standards and financial incentives in a competitive environment to encourage
competitors to develop and institute innovative and cost-effective methods of
performing the work. A PWS may be prepared by the Government or result from a
Statement of Objectives prepared by the Government where the offeror proposes
the PWS.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 92

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Statement of Objectives (SOO): An SOO is defined in FAR Part 2.101 and its
use must meet the criteria in FAR Part 37.602(c). It is another way to solicit a
performance-based acquisition mechanism. A SOO provides performance
objectives and operating constraints, along with results that the contractor must
achieve. The SOO does not define the tasks to be performed, but requires
competing offerors to develop a PWS to define their approach and solution for
meeting the objectives, along with performance measures to define success and a
quality assurance plan to monitor these metrics. These must be evaluated prior to
award.

B. Assistance

For assistance mechanisms, the Program Description (PD) section of the Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO), previously referred to as the Request for Application
(RFA), describes the Program Areas for which funding is available.

Program Description: When drafting the PD, Missions and Washington OUs
should keep in mind that USAID supports creative approaches by assistance
recipients to develop their own methodologies in carrying out activities. The PD
should be results-oriented and must describe the Mission’s or Washington OU’s
funding priorities or the technical areas in which Missions and Washington OUs
intend to provide assistance. As appropriate, it may include any program history
(e.g., whether this is a new program or a new or changed area of program
emphasis). This section may communicate illustrative indicators of successful
projects or activities (e.g., if the program encourages collaborative efforts) and may
include examples of activities that have been funded previously. Missions and
Washington OUs should work closely with the AO to determine necessary
components and the appropriate tone of the PD for the assistance mechanism
selected (see 2 CFR 200 Appendix I, 2 CFR 200.301 and ADS 303).

Step 4: Draft Cost Estimate/Budget and Other GLAAS Requisition Documents

A. Cost Estimate/Budget

For acquisition activities, Missions and Washington OUs must prepare an

Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). IGCE costs may include direct
costs such as labor, products, equipment, travel, and transportation. They may
also include indirect costs such as overhead and/or general and administrative
(G&A) expenses, as well as profit or fee (see ADS 300maa, Independent
Government Cost Estimate Guide and Template for additional guidance).

For assistance activities, Missions and Washington OUs must prepare an activity
assistance budget based on availability and allocation of funds. For assistance
awards, setting a realistic goal and supporting analysis for cost share, if cost share

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 93

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
is contemplated in the award, from the recipient can be an important consideration,
since it can increase resources available to achieve activity results and support
local ownership (see ADS 303 and Cost Share in the Program Cycle for
additional guidance on cost share).

B. Other Solicitation Documents

Missions and Washington OUs must also prepare other documents for the
solicitation, which are submitted with the GLAAS requisition package described in
ADS 300. These typically include Deliveries or Performance, Instructions to
Offerors/Applicants, and Evaluation Criteria, among others. ADS 205 describes
additional requirements for integrating gender into each of these sections. All
requirements in a solicitation matter to the offeror/applicant, and the
offeror/applicant will review each of them with great care to ascertain how best to
present their proposal.

C. Pre-Obligation (or Pre-Sub-Obligation) Requirements

USAID funds are subject to numerous legal, policy, and instrument-specific

requirements that must be met prior to the obligation and/or expenditure of funds.
These requirements apply to both Missions and Washington OUs. In addition to
the SOW/SOO/PWS/PD and other GLAAS requisition documents, Missions and
Washington OUs should complete any remaining pre-obligation requirements (or
pre-sub-obligation requirements in the case of funds obligated through a DOAG
agreement) that were not satisfied in the DOAG or [PAD] (see ADS 300 and ADS
201mad, Legal Requirements Summary Checklist for additional guidance).
Additional requirements may vary depending on the implementing mechanism.
Missions and Washington OUs should work with their RLO or GC on questions
related to instrument-specific requirements.

Step 5: Clear the Activity Design and GLAAS Requisition Package through
Mission or Washington Operating Unit Procedures

The process for clearing activities that have been approved for design under a [PAD]
Approval Memorandum, or amendment thereto, is at the Mission’s or Washington OU’s
discretion. However, it is highly recommended that the process and documentation be
streamlined, efficient, and clearly articulated through a Delegation of Authority
Mission/Bureau Order, a Project/Activity Design Mission Order, or a Mission/Bureau
Notice.

Frequently Missions (and Washington OUs if applicable) will choose to clear activities
through a brief action memorandum attached to the GLAAS requisition package.
Missions must reference or attach the appropriate PAD Approval Memorandum as part
of this process.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 94

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
For activities which are not part of a [PAD] and are approved through an AAM, pursuant
to 201.3.4.5, Missions and Washington OUs must reference or attach the AAM to the
GLAAS requisition package (see ADS 201mai, Activity Approval Memo Template).

Missions and Washington OUs should be aware of the Senior Obligation Alignment
Review (SOAR) requirement for larger awards. The Planner should refer to ADS 300 for
additional guidance on the SOAR process and work closely with M/OAA, the Program
Office, and Regional Bureaus in USAID/Washington to build the SOAR process into the
design timeline. Ideally, this should have already been taken into account in the Project
Management and Implementation Plan described in 201.3.3.12.

Step 6: Solicit, Negotiate, and Award the Activity

In Step 6, the activity moves to solicitation. For A&A awards, the activity must be
entered into the GLAAS system (see ADS 300). The Planner must work closely with the
CO/AO to finalize the solicitation for release and eventual award. There are several pre-
award requirements and procedures that A&A actions follow prior to award, including:

● Solicitation;

● Technical Evaluation and Cost Analysis (acquisition) or Merit Review

(assistance);

● Source Selection;

● Negotiation;

● Responsibility Determination or Risk-Analysis; and

● Notification and Execution of Award.

See ADS 300, ADS 302, ADS 303, ADS 306, and ADS 308 for additional guidance.

Procurement Action Lead Times (PALT), intended to measure timeframes related to

pre-solicitation, begin once a requisition is entered into GLAAS (see ADS 300). Once all
requirements have been completed or negotiated, the signed award marks the
beginning of the next phase, award implementation.

201.3.4.6 Partner Country Government Agreement Design

Effective Date: 06/20/2017

Except as otherwise described in 201.3.3.2, Partner Country Government Agreement,

also referred to as Government to Government (G2G) activities must contribute to the
purpose of a project and be approved in a [PAD], whether as initially approved or as
amended. Therefore, before initiating the activity design process, the Mission must first

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 95

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
review the G2G analyses in the corresponding [PAD]. Completion of all necessary
analyses is the basis for the Mission Director’s approval for using partner government
systems as certified in the [PAD] Approval Memorandum or subsequent amendment.
These analyses include the PFMRAF Stage 2 Risk Assessment, the AUPGS, and other
analyses defined in Section 7031 of the annual Appropriations Act. If the G2G activity is
not part of a broader project under a [PAD] (i.e. is a stand-alone activity under $5
million), these analyses must also be completed for that activity and the Mission
Director also must approve the activity for using partner government systems and so
certify in the AAM (see ADS 220 for more details on required G2G analyses and ADS
201mai, Activity Approval Memorandum Template).

When undertaking the analyses associated with a G2G activity (either as part of a [PAD]
or as a stand-alone activity), the Mission should have a clear idea about the government
entities that will be the focus of the analyses and the expected outputs/outcomes of the
assistance. This will make it possible to focus and tailor the analyses to fit the
requirements of the activity and use of USAID funds.

The concepts of local ownership and mutual accountability are fundamental to the
design of G2G activities. Implementing through a direct agreement with a partner
government is the essence of co-design and co-implementation, since the relationship
with the partner government is approached as an equal partnership. The relationship
between Mission staff and the partner government should have begun early in the
project design process so that the development and negotiation of the activity-specific
G2G agreement (including the program description and associated budget) will build on
this relationship.

The G2G design process will require continuation of the cross-Mission Project Team
and include the involved technical office, OFM, RLO, and others as appropriate. As
stated in ADS 220, the Project Team will also incorporate members of the Partner
Government Systems (PGS) Team. Since the G2G design and agreement process are
much more integrated for G2G activities than A&A instruments, the Mission should
consider designation of the Government Agreement Technical Representative (GATR)
at this point to provide the principal point of contact for partner government counterparts
and provide continuity for the Mission design team. The GATR is roughly the equivalent
of a COR for acquisition or AOR for assistance and is formally delegated certain roles
and responsibilities by the Mission Director.

While details of the project design and agreement negotiations processes for G2G
activities are found in ADS 220, the following sections briefly highlight key components
of the process, including required documentation to be incorporated into the [PAD] or
[PAD] amendment. These components include:

● Preparing the draft G2G agreement,

● Clearing the draft G2G agreement through Mission procedures,

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 96

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Negotiating the G2G agreement with the partner government, and

● Clearing the final negotiated text of the G2G agreement through Mission
procedures.

This is the normal sequence of G2G activity design through execution of the agreement
by the appropriate USAID and partner government officials. Missions should determine
how best to manage these processes to fit their particular circumstances.

Prepare the Draft G2G Agreement

The draft G2G agreement may take the form of a sub-obligating Implementation Letter
under a DOAG or a direct obligation in the form of a Bilateral Project Agreement;
depending on the Mission (see ADS 220). In addition to the terms and conditions and
the standard provisions of the agreement, the GATR should take the lead in drafting the
Program Description and, with the financial management office, the detailed activity
budget to be included in the agreement. In addition, the agreement should define the
disbursement option (cost reimbursement or Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreement
(FARA), based on the requirements of the project) (see ADS 220 and Implementing
Mechanism Matrix for additional guidance defining each option).

Reporting requirements, including possible periodic development and joint approval of

annual work plans, also should be included in the agreement. If the plan for mitigation of
fiduciary risks developed in the AUPGS includes actions to be taken over time by the
partner government, reporting on progress made should be included in the reporting
requirements of the partner government under the agreement. If the agreement includes
construction of infrastructure, Missions are encouraged to involve a USAID engineer in
the development of reporting requirements.

In drafting the agreement, the Mission also must take into consideration the mandatory
analyses discussed in 201.3.3.12.

Clear the Draft Agreement through Mission Procedures

Since G2G agreements are not cleared through GLAAS, the Mission should determine
how it will circulate draft G2G agreements, who should clear on these agreements, and
how this process will be documented. Depending on the circumstances, the Mission
may choose to discuss components of the agreement with partner government staff so
that it best reflects a co-design approach. Since there is no inherent competitive award
process in G2G assistance, full discussion of draft material is encouraged.

Negotiate the Draft Agreement with the Partner Government

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 97

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Once the full text of the agreement is cleared internally in the Mission, formal
negotiations can begin with partner government officials. Missions should define a
negotiating team, with clear roles for each team member. Frequently, the team will be
led by the RLO, although other team members may also play that role. In addition to the
text of the agreement, the negotiation process allows a full discussion and
understanding of the roles and responsibilities of USAID and the partner government,
including counterpart funding, conditions related to disbursement, and other significant
issues.

Clear the Final Agreement through Mission Procedures

The Mission should document internal clearances of the final text once it is negotiated.
At this point, if not sooner, the Mission should document that all pre-obligation (or pre-
sub-obligation) requirements have been met. This includes the requirements of Section
7031 of the Annual Appropriations Act for all G2G obligations. The Mission should
determine the responsible offices and clearance process.

The Mission Director has the delegated authority to obligate USAID funds through
agreements with partner governments. The officials responsible for signing on behalf of
the partner government will be determined by that government. Frequently, the
government will designate a representative from the Ministry of Finance or other central
authority in addition to the involved line ministry or office.

201.3.4.7 Design Considerations for Other Mechanisms

Effective Date: 06/20/2017

Other types of implementing mechanisms that are not A&A or G2G instruments may be
used by Missions and Washington OUs to contribute to project or strategic results (see
Implementing Mechanism Matrix for additional guidance on other mechanism types).
These include, but are not limited to following:

Development Credit Authority (DCA)

The Development Credit Authority (DCA) is an Agency tool that can be used to assist
with mobilizing private capital by providing credit guarantees to private lenders and
investors to encourage them to lend in support of specific development objectives.
Missions and Washington OUs should work closely with the Bureau for Economic
Growth, Education, and Environment’s Development Credit Authority Office (E3/DCA)
during the design process of DCAs.

Initial analytical requirements for DCAs involve conducting a detailed field-based market
assessment, which provides recommendations for the selection of appropriate financial
partner(s). Once E3/DCA and the Mission or Washington OU identify and select
financial partner(s) that are appropriate and agreeable, E3/DCA negotiates the terms of
the potential transaction with the identified financial partner(s) and then conducts a

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 98

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
thorough risk assessment of the selected financial partner(s). The Agency’s internal
Credit Review Board (CRB) reviews and approves the DCA action package, signed by
the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). Once CFO approval through the CRB is obtained, the
Mission or Washington OU is able to finalize the DCA Guarantee Agreement. For
additional DCA guidance, see ADS 249, Development Credit Authority (DCA).

Activities Implemented by USAID Staff

Missions and Washington OUs may identify activities that are complementary to other
activities within a project that will be implemented directly by USAID staff. These may
include policy dialogue, capacity building of local organizations or partner government
institutions, and stakeholder coordination, among others.

The Mission or Washington OU may consider documenting the roles of Mission or

Washington OU staff and other development actors, as well as expected outcomes or
milestones, to measure progress against project-level outcomes over time.

Activities Implemented through Delegated Cooperation

A. Grants to Other Bilateral and Multilateral Donor Entities

This implementing mechanism highlights the Agency’s commitment to donor

harmonization and collaboration, consistent with and in furtherance of the
commitments and guidance in the:

● Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness,

● Accra Agenda for Action,

● Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation,

● Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development, and

● Quadrennial Development and Diplomacy Review.

Grants to other donor entities promote the practice of bilateral or multilateral

development partners taking the lead in aligning with the partner country
government’s priorities and programs, implementing clearly defined project
elements in close harmony with one another. See ADS 351, Agreements with
Bilateral Donors, or ADS 308 for guidance, policies, and procedures applicable
in instances where grants to another bilateral or multilateral donor constitute a
sound and sensible approach for USAID partners to program its assistance.
Agency staff is encouraged to consider delegated cooperation as often as
appropriate.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 99

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
B. Pooled Funding Arrangements

Missions and Washington OUs may use pooled funding arrangements, primarily
through contributions to multi-donor trust funds, to implement activities that
involve other development actors, to gain efficiencies, to reduce the burden on
the partner country, and to increase the leverage associated with USAID’s
contribution to multi-donor development efforts in developing countries. Under
these arrangements, detailed in ADS 308, USAID funds are pooled with other
donors and are not managed as separate or distinct from other resources in the
pool. Guidance in ADS 351 is applicable in cases in which another bilateral
donor is the manager of the pooled fund. The Project Team must undertake
normal due diligence and risk assessment in consultation with the Program
Office, the RLO, and Controller in considering the use of pooled funding
arrangements, consistent with the guidance in ADS 308 or ADS 351.

201.3.4.8 Implementation of Activities

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Activity implementation commences with the signing of a legally binding document

between the Agency and the partner(s) or awardee(s). In the case of internally staffed
activities, such as policy dialogue or capacity building, no legally binding agreement is
required, and activities may be initiated whenever deemed appropriate by the Mission or
Washington OU. During implementation, the COR, AOR, or GATR, begins oversight of
the activity in accordance with the terms of the respective instrument. In addition to the
administrative responsibilities in overseeing the agreement, activity implementation also
has a technical component that includes monitoring, learning, analyzing, and using data
and other information to oversee the progress of the activity, make decisions, and
manage any course corrections.

An important aspect of activity implementation is working with the Project Manager (see
201.3.3.14) to forge and strengthen collaborative relationships among all implementing
partners supporting a given project through open communication and dialogue. To the
extent possible, Missions and Washington OUs should facilitate joint work planning,
partners’ meetings, working groups, and/or other collaborative activities to orient
implementing partners to the larger strategy to which they contribute, avoid duplication
of effort, take advantage of synergies, and facilitate an environment that is open to
learning and adapting.

It is important to note that activity oversight, as well as engagement with an

implementing partner, may be different according to the type of instrument (see ADS
304). Oversight of G2G instruments is explicitly stated in the GATR letter, but may also
involve other Mission or Washington OU staff, such as the Controller, for oversight of
fiduciary risk mitigation measures or public financial management capacities.

201.3.4.9 Roles in Activity Implementation

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 100

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

USAID promotes the use of multi-functional teams for both project and activity
management. For the activity, Missions and Washington OUs shall designate a
COR/AOR/GATR (often the same person who previously served as the Planner) to
provide administrative and technical oversight over a particular activity. This manager
has different titles depending on the type of instrument: AOR for assistance awards,
COR for acquisition awards, and GATR for partner country government agreements.
The COR/AOR/GATR must closely review and follow all responsibilities, core functions,
and limitations as stated in his/her signed designation letter. Administrative
responsibilities typically include verifying conformance with branding and marking
requirements, ensuring inventory control, assuring data quality, and approving
implementation plans or work plans, among others (see ADS 302, ADS 303, ADS 320,
and ADS 220, for additional guidance).

In addition to these roles with specific delegated authorities, the CO/AO may also
identify an Activity Manager based on recommendations from the technical office to
assist the COR/AOR in performing certain technical oversight duties, but the Activity
Manager is not authorized to provide technical direction to implementing partners or any
other action that binds the government based on the COR/AOR designation letter. In
the case of field support implementing mechanisms, the Activity Manager is often
located in the Mission, while the COR is located in USAID/Washington. It is
recommended that Missions identify Activity Managers for Field Support activities
implemented at their Mission.

Activity implementation should be a cross-Mission or cross-OU effort and not be limited

to the technical office. Missions and Washington OUs have the authority to organize
staff to most efficiently oversee activity implementation.

201.3.4.10 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Effective Date: 06/20/2017

Achieving results outlined in a project through the implementation of a set of activities is

a continuous process. It is important to integrate and clarify monitoring, evaluation and
learning expectations, requirements, and necessary resources at the solicitation phase
of an activity in order to ensure that implementing partners place the appropriate
emphasis on these efforts. Activity monitoring, evaluation, and learning should
emphasize the systematic process of collecting and analyzing performance data and
other information to track progress toward planned results. Monitoring and evaluation
should be used to influence decision making and resource allocation and to make
changes as needed. It also involves managing the relationship between the activity and
its associated project by assisting implementing partners in understanding their activity’s
contribution to the Project Purpose and other key project outcomes and fostering
collaborative learning among partners (see ADS 302 and ADS 303 for USAID policy on
A&A oversight management).

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 101

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

A. Activity MEL Plan

Activities must have an approved Activity MEL Plan in place before major
implementation actions begin. Project Managers should work with the
COR/AOR/GATR/Activity Manager to ensure that the Activity MEL Plan is
consistent with and meets the data collection needs of the Project MEL Plan, the
Mission’s PMP, and the Mission’s annual Performance Plan and Report (PPR).

For A&A awards, implementing partners must submit a proposed Activity MEL
Plan to the COR/AOR in accordance with the guidelines in their award or
agreement, often within 90 days of an award. In cases of partner country
government agreements, the monitoring approach, including performance
indicators, should be jointly agreed upon by the Mission and the host-country
government entity as part of the direct agreement with the government (see ADS
220 for additional guidance).

Although an implementing partner typically proposes the Activity MEL Plan, it is

the COR/AOR’s responsibility to review, collaborate on any necessary changes,
and approve or concur with the plan. Key components of the Activity MEL Plan
typically include:

● The activity’s monitoring approach, including relevant performance

indicators of activity outputs and outcomes;

● Plans for collaborating with any external evaluations planned by the

Mission or Washington OU;

● Any proposed internal evaluations;

● Learning activities, including knowledge capture at activity close out;

● Estimated resources for these monitoring, evaluation and learning

activities that are a part of the implementing partner’s budget; and

● Roles and responsibilities for all proposed monitoring, evaluation and

learning actions.

The Activity MEL Plan should be revised as needed in response to changes in

the activity or context that occur during the life of the activity (see How-To Note:
Activity Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan for additional guidance).

B. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Management

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 102

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
I. Monitoring

While an implementing partner typically proposes and executes the

Activity MEL Plan, Missions and Washington OUs also have
performance management responsibilities. Missions and Washington
OUs must track implementation progress; monitor the quantity, quality,
and timeliness of activity outputs; monitor achievement of activity
outcomes; and ensure the quality of performance monitoring data
collected by partners. This typically entails the following tasks:
reviewing performance indicator data and monitoring reports;
conducting or participating in Data Quality Assessments (DQAs);
conducting site visits; examining technical reports and deliverables;
and meeting with implementing staff and other stakeholders.
Monitoring is not limited to an activity’s interventions; it also involves
monitoring programmatic assumptions and the operational context of
the activity in order to recognize trends and shifts in external factors
that might affect the activity’s performance.

For each activity, Missions and Washington OUs must:

● Collaborate with the implementing partner to ensure all

necessary monitoring information is being collected per the
Activity MEL Plan to support the management and learning
needs of the activity and its associated project. This includes
setting performance indicator targets and collecting
performance indicator baselines and actual data.

● Collaborate with the implementing partner to revise the Activity

MEL Plan’s indicators as needed (see 201.3.5.7 for additional
guidance about changing indicators).

● Ensure Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS) are

complete and sufficient, and are consistent across all activities
collecting data for the same indicator (see 201.3.5.7 for
additional guidance about PIRS).

● Review performance monitoring indicator data and technical

reports to ensure the quality of the monitoring information is
sufficient for decision-making and reporting, and conduct DQAs
as appropriate (see 201.3.5.8 for additional guidance about data
quality and DQAs).

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 103

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Perform site visits to provide activity oversight, inspect
implementation progress and deliverables, verify monitoring
data, and learn from activity implementation.

● Meet with partner(s), sector experts, donors, and the host

government to share monitoring information as well as review
activity progress.

● Analyze performance and context monitoring information to

inform management and adapt interventions.

● Analyze performance monitoring indicator data to identify any

gender gaps (the extent to which females and males are
participating in and benefiting from projects and activities) (see
ADS 205).

For additional guidance about performance and context monitoring,

see 201.3.5.5.

II. Evaluation

Section 201.3.5.9 describes procedures for planning and implementing

an evaluation. Evaluations of activities should be planned the during
project and activity design process. Impact evaluations of activities or
specific interventions within an activity must be planned during the
project and activity design process to accommodate parallel
implementation of the evaluation. However, Missions and Washington
OUs may decide to initiate a performance evaluation at any point
during activity implementation, particularly if new information arises
indicating that an evaluation is appropriate for accountability or
learning purposes.

AORs/CORs/GATRs should actively engage with implementing

partners of activities being evaluated to ensure partners and external
evaluators are collaborating productively. AORs/CORs/GATRs should
inform implementing partners as early as possible if their activity will be
evaluated and must share the draft and final evaluation design
completed by the evaluation team. AORs/CORs/GATRs should also
ensure implementing partners are facilitating access to data,
documentation, personnel, and key stakeholders as appropriate for the
completion of an external evaluation. Following the completion of an
evaluation, Missions and Washington OUs must share the draft and
final evaluation reports with the implementing partner being evaluated

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 104

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
and should coordinate with the implementing partner on dissemination
and utilization of evaluation findings (see 201.3.5.18).

III. Learning and Adaptive Management

Missions and Washington OUs should facilitate an intentional

approach to learning and adaptive management, both within the
boundaries of the activity as well as within the larger project to which
the activity contributes. Potential approaches include, but are not
limited to:

● Having partners identify knowledge gaps in the theory of change

for their activity or in their technical knowledge base and
supporting them in identifying and implementing ways to fill
these gaps.

● Planning for and engaging in regular opportunities for partners

to reflect on progress, such as partner meetings, portfolio
reviews, and after-action reviews. These opportunities may
focus on challenges and successes in implementation to date,
changes in the operating environment or context that could
affect programming, opportunities to better collaborate or
influence other actors, and/or other relevant topics.

● Encouraging or requiring partners under a project to collaborate,

where relevant. Collaboration activities may include joint work
planning, regular partner meetings that facilitate knowledge
sharing, and/or working groups organized along geographic or
technical lines. These activities require time and resources, and
the OU should ensure that implementing partners have the
appropriate resources available to participate.

● Involving implementing partners in the Mission’s or Washington

OU’s learning activities, such as portfolio reviews or stocktaking
efforts, as appropriate.

● Using the knowledge and learning gained from implementation,

opportunities to reflect on performance, monitoring data,
evaluations, knowledge about the context, and other sources to
adjust interventions and approaches as needed.

201.3.4.11 Resource Management During Implementation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 105

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Missions and Washington OUs should manage activity financial resources in a manner
that maximizes impact and leads to the achievement of the stated results in the activity.
These resources include program and operating expense (OE) funds and, where
appropriate, in-kind and local currency resources. Performing funds control, obligations
management, and payments are key functions in managing financial resources.

Periodic financial reviews, recommended quarterly to align with the accruals process,
are required per ADS 631, Accrued Expenditures and are an important tool for
increasing efficiency, coordination, and accountability and for ensuring compliance with
important guidance, such as forward funding. The purpose of financial reviews is to
review implementation progress in financial terms, which means reviewing the status of
the budget, obligations, expenditures, and pipeline, as well as identifying de-
obligation/re-obligation and proposed reallocations to the budget. Financial reviews also
help inform formulation of budget requests through the Mission/Bureau Resource
Request (MRR/BRR), the Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) and the Operational
Plan (OP) processes.

A. Requesting and Managing Funds

Requests for incremental funding during activity implementation are based on

projected expenditures, existing pipeline, and the policy and guidelines related to
forward funding of program funds (see ADS 602, Forward Funding, Program
Funds and ADS 621, Obligations respectively). In general, the policy states that
current pipelines and new obligations should be adequate to finance 12 to 24
months of planned expenditures. Exceptions to this policy directive (see ADS
602.3.3) require the approval of the Mission Director or Washington OU AA. New
resource requests are informed by, and cannot exceed the limit established by,
the forward funding policy. If pipelines at the end of a fiscal year are not
adequate to finance the next fiscal year’s projected expenditures, there is a risk
that new funds will not be available in time to avoid slowing down or ceasing
activity implementation. It is therefore critical that AORs/CORs/GATRs make
careful projections and monitor them closely so that adequate resources are
available when needed.

B. Financial Planning, Tracking, and Budgeting

The COR/AOR/GATR must prudently plan, track, and manage the financial
aspects of their activities throughout the life of the activity. This responsibility may
also extend beyond the life of the project or activity when issues remain
unresolved, such as an unresolved cost with a contractor over a reimbursement
issue. An activity’s financial position may be planned and measured by projecting
and analyzing trends and relationships of several key sets of budget and financial
data such as:

● Life-of-mechanism funding;

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 106

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Mortgage;

● Obligations, sub-obligations, and de-obligations;

● Accruals;

● Disbursements;

● Expenditures and expenditure rate (“burn rate”); and

● Unliquidated obligations and pipeline.

These data are generated as implementation mechanisms are signed and

executed and payments are made. Financial data is most useful when
considered in conjunction with the activity’s work plan, as this allows the Mission
or Washington OU to track and assess performance in relation to expenditures.
Missions and Washington OUs should use these data during portfolio reviews
and financial reviews to monitor expenditures, validate funding needs, and plan
accordingly. Missions and Washington OUs should generate key financial
information each quarter on accrued and projected expenditures and use this
information to manage performance during implementation and future
obligations.

201.3.4.12 Activity Modifications and Amendments

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Monitoring and learning throughout the lifetime of an activity means that changes to the
underlying agreement may be necessary to facilitate adaptive management. These
changes may include adjustments in the scope, budget, ceiling, or key personnel
outlined in the agreement, among other changes. Such changes must be made in
accordance with the regulatory and policy requirements applicable to the award type.

For A&A awards, identified modifications should be discussed with the CO/AO. Once
the CO/AO concurs with the changes, these actions should then be entered in the
Agency A&A Plan to enable OAA to manage the list of new actions in light of the
existing workload and typical lead times associated with each type of action (see ADS
300). The CO/AO must also determine whether and when it is appropriate to consult
with senior management in the Mission or Washington OU, the partner country
government, and/or other country partners before executing such changes. For more
information on administering modifications to A&A awards, see ADS 302, ADS 303,
ADS 306, and ADS 308.

In the case of partner country government agreements, Missions and the partner
country government must agree jointly that amendments are required in either the

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 107

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
agreement, the implementation plan, or both. The GATR and the RLO, in coordination
with the Project Manager, will take the lead in these negotiations.

Per 201.3.3.16, there are two circumstances where an activity-level change triggers a
formal [PAD] amendment:

(1) The estimated total USAID budget for the project increases or decreases by a
significant amount, as determined by the Mission or Washington OU, due to an
increase or decrease in life of activity funding; or

(2) The completion date of the project requires an extension of more than six months
(e.g., when the end date of an activity is being extended beyond the life of the
[PAD]).

Missions (and Washington OUs, if applicable) may provide further definition of these
triggers and/or determine others at their discretion.

201.3.4.13 Alignment of Activities with Strategies and Projects

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

There will often be overlap and transitions of activities between strategies and
projects. The Mission should carefully consider the transition between strategies, and
their associated DOAGs, as well as project and activity alignment.

Implementing mechanisms (IMs) that are awarded or extended under approved projects
should not end beyond the end date of the project. In cases where the IM award or
extension extends more than six months beyond the project end date, the project
should be amended to align the project end date with the end date of the associated IM.
In some cases, instead of extending the project end date, the IM may be incorporated
into a new project, subject to the corresponding portfolio alignment process.

IMs may be funded directly as direct obligating agreements (in which case there is no
association with a DOAG), or as a sub-obligation under a DOAG (see 201.3.2.15 for
more information about activity alignment to DOAGs).

201.3.4.14 Close Out

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

When an activity concludes, Missions and Washington OUs must execute formal close
out procedures. Close out reports allow the Agency to “close the file” officially on an
activity or instrument programmatically and financially.

Close out of direct A&A instruments, in addition to recording major programmatic and
performance issues, must comply with close out procedures defined by OAA, see ADS
302sat Guidance on Closeout Procedures for A&A Awards. The CO/AO is

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 108

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
responsible for closing out these instruments and will provide guidance to CORs/AORs
on their roles in the process. Although the CO/AO leads this process, the COR/AOR
plays an important role in closing out the files and coordinating with the OFM for funds
de-obligation or with M/CFO in the case of Washington-funded and managed activities.

The GATR is responsible for closing out partner country instruments. For more
information on closing out G2G agreements, see ADS 220.

As part of the close out process, Missions and Washington OUs should consider how
the knowledge and learning gained during the implementation of an activity will be
captured and shared. This information may be documented in a written final report, an
evaluation, a conference/event, a video, or online materials that explain the results and
lessons learned. Regardless of the format, the production of these learning materials
should be included in the activity budget.

201.3.5 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

This section focuses on the considerations, practices, and requirements for monitoring
program performance and operational context; evaluating the performance and results
of USAID programs; and learning and adapting for improved effectiveness.

Monitoring is the ongoing and systematic tracking of data or information relevant to

USAID strategies, projects, and activities. Evaluation is the systematic collection and
analysis of information about the characteristics and outcomes of strategies, projects,
and activities conducted as a basis for judgments to improve effectiveness and timed to
inform decisions about current and future programming. Learning is a continuous
process of analyzing a wide variety of information sources and knowledge including
evaluation findings, monitoring data, research, analyses conducted by USAID or others,
and experiential knowledge of staff and development actors. Learning takes place
throughout the Program Cycle.

The purpose of monitoring, evaluation and learning practices is to apply knowledge

gained from evidence and analysis to improve development outcomes and ensure
accountability for the resources used to achieve them. USAID relies on the best
available information to rigorously and credibly make choices, plan effectively, manage
adaptively, and learn systematically.

201.3.5.1 Applicability of Guidance for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The guidance in this section that pertains to monitoring and evaluation is generally
applicable to all Missions and Washington OUs. However:

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 109

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Monitoring and evaluation requirements that are based on CDCS processes (e.g.
the PMP and whole-of-project evaluation requirement – see 201.3.2.7 and
203.3.5.13 respectively) are applicable only to Missions.

● Monitoring and evaluation requirements that are based on project design and
implementation processes (e.g. the Project MEL Plan and one-evaluation-per-
project requirement – see 201.3.3.13 and 201.3.5.13 respectively) are only
applicable to projects approved under PADs.

The guidance that pertains to learning is applicable only to Missions; however,

Washington OUs may find that much of the guidance on learning is good practice and
may be adopted when feasible.

Emergency Food Assistance, Disaster Assistance, and Transition Assistance:

Activities targeted at preventing, mitigating, responding to, recovering from, and
transitioning from crisis are exempt from requirements related to MEL planning and
timing. These activities include:

(1) Disaster assistance managed by the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
(OFDA);

(2) Activities managed by the Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), or activities

funded with the Complex Crises Fund (CCF) managed by Missions; and

(3) Emergency Food Assistance managed by the Office of Food for Peace (FFP).

These OFDA, OTI, FFP and CCF-funded activities are exempt from requirements
related to MEL planning and timing, such as PMPs, project and activity MEL plans as
noted earlier in this chapter. Within their monitoring and evaluation efforts, they should
adhere to the quality standards for monitoring and evaluation noted in this subsection as
feasible.

201.3.5.2 Monitoring
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Monitoring is the ongoing and systematic tracking of data or information relevant to

USAID strategies, projects, and activities. Relevant data and informational needs are
identified during planning and design and may include output and outcome measures
that are directly attributable to or affected by USAID interventions as well as measures
of the operating context and programmatic assumptions.

Monitoring informs strategy, project, and activity design and implementation. The
analysis of monitoring data should inform efforts to manage adaptively and promote
accountability. Monitoring data should be used in evaluations where appropriate.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 110

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Additional guidance and tools that provide greater clarity about monitoring throughout
the Program Cycle are available in the USAID Monitoring Toolkit.

201.3.5.3 Principles of Monitoring

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Plan Early: Missions and Washington OUs should plan for monitoring while developing
strategies and designing projects and activities. Missions and Washington OUs must
document monitoring approaches in the Mission PMP and Project and Activity MEL
Plans.

Collaborate: Monitoring is strengthened by involving beneficiaries, partner country

partners, implementing partners, other USAID and U.S. Government entities, and other
development actors. Wherever possible, Missions should align monitoring efforts with
those of their partner country counterparts and other donors to promote aid
effectiveness.

Adequately Resource: Missions and Washington OUs must include adequate funding
and personnel resources for monitoring work, including, as appropriate, funds for
capacity improvement in partner country or local organization partners and in their
strategy, project, and activity budgets.

Be Practical and Efficient: Missions and Washington OUs should only collect and
report on the information that is directly useful for management decision making or
reporting purposes.

Be Transparent: Missions and Washington OUs should share information widely and
report candidly.

201.3.5.4 Mission and Washington Operating Unit Roles for Monitoring

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Each Mission and Washington OU Program Office must identify a monitoring POC that
will interact with the regional and technical bureau points of contact and with PPL/LER.

C. Mission Program Office

At Missions, the Program Office will support Mission Technical Offices monitor
throughout the Program Cycle, ensure compliance with monitoring requirements,
promote best practices for utilizing monitoring information during implementation,
and support consistency across monitoring plans. The Program Office will
maintain the Mission PMP (for additional guidance about a Mission PMP, see
201.3.2.16). The Program Office is responsible for leading the annual
Performance Plan and Report (PPR) process.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 111

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

D. Mission Technical Offices

Mission Technical Offices are responsible for monitoring throughout the Program
Cycle, including working with partners to develop monitoring plans, develop or
select indicators, ensure data is collected and maintained, ensure that data is of
sufficient quality, analyze data for decision making and adaptation, and share
and report data as appropriate.

E. Washington OUs

Washington OUs support Missions in fulfilling monitoring requirements by

providing technical support in selecting appropriate indicators, assisting in the
development of Mission-wide PMPs and Project and Activity MEL Plans,
supporting data quality, and reviewing annual PPR data.

Washington OUs must follow monitoring guidance described in sections

201.3.5.2 through 201.3.5.8 for any of their own projects or activities
implemented. Regarding field support mechanisms, Washington OUs must
coordinate with the Activity Manager at the Mission and ensure that both the
Mission and Washington OU have the most up-to-date information from
monitoring efforts of the field support activity.

For detailed information about staff roles and responsibilities for monitoring, see ADS
201sal, Staff Roles and Responsibilities for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning.

201.3.5.5 Types of Program Monitoring

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

A. Performance Monitoring

Missions and Washington OUs must conduct performance monitoring of their

strategies, projects, and activities.

Performance monitoring is the ongoing and systematic collection of performance

indicator data and other quantitative or qualitative information to reveal whether
implementation is on track and whether expected results are being achieved.
Performance monitoring includes monitoring the quantity, quality, and timeliness
of activity outputs within the control of USAID or its implementers, as well as the
monitoring of project and strategic outcomes that are expected to result from the
combination of these outputs and other factors. Performance monitoring
continues throughout strategies, projects, and activities.

Performance monitoring data are analyzed in order to inform judgments about

the outputs and outcomes of programs and projects as a basis to improve

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 112

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
effectiveness and/or inform decisions about current and future programming.
One way that Missions and Washington OUs analyze performance is by
comparing actual results achieved against the expected results and targets
initially set at the beginning of a strategy, project, or activity. This analysis is
critical in determining the progress made in achieving the expected results
identified in a CDCS Results Framework and project and activity logic models.
Missions should use this analysis and knowledge gained to confirm or refute their
assumptions and hypotheses and/or adaptively manage as necessary.

B. Context Monitoring

Missions and Washington OUs should also conduct context monitoring for
strategies, projects, and activities.

Context monitoring is the systematic collection of information about conditions

and external factors relevant to the implementation and performance of a Mission
or Washington OU’s strategy, projects, and activities. This includes information
about local conditions that may directly affect implementation and performance
(such as non-USAID projects operating within the same sector as USAID
projects) or external factors that may indirectly affect implementation and
performance (such as macro-economic, social, or political conditions). Context
monitoring should be used to monitor assumptions and risks identified in a CDCS
Results Framework or project or activity logic model.

Context monitoring data are analyzed in order to form judgements about how
actors and conditions outside the control of USAID may affect programming.
Context monitoring may also reveal the unintended consequences of USAID
programing. Missions and Washington OUs use this information to make
management decisions and inform management actions about implementation,
including when and how USAID needs to engage with other donors working in
the same context.

C. Complementary Monitoring Approaches

To complement performance and context monitoring in situations where results

are difficult to predict due to dynamic contexts or unclear cause-and-effect
relationships, Missions and Washington OUs may consider using additional
monitoring approaches, including complexity-aware approaches. When
programming in non-permissive environments, complementary monitoring
approaches may be appropriate to collect relevant and useful data (see ADS
201sad, Complexity-Aware Monitoring Discussion Note).

201.3.5.6 Standards and Criteria for Monitoring and Reporting

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 113

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
When planning for monitoring, Missions and Washington OUs must consider the utility
of the information for management at the relevant level of decision making. It is
recommended that a use and a user be identified for all monitoring data prior to data
collection. Missions and Washington OUs must also ensure that the information
collected will be of sufficient quality to be useful for intended users (see 201.3.5.8).

201.3.5.7 Monitoring Indicators

Effective Date: 06/20/2017

An indicator is a quantifiable measure of a characteristic or condition of people,

institutions, systems, or processes that may change over time. Missions and
Washington OUs should consider what indicators are useful to understand the
performance and evolving context of their strategy, projects, and activities. While
indicators are not the only means of monitoring strategies, projects, and activities, they
are an important part of such monitoring efforts.

A. Types of Indicators

Performance Indicators: These indicators measure expected outputs and

outcomes of strategies, projects, or activities based on a Mission’s Results
Framework or project or activity logic model. Performance indicators help answer
the extent to which a Mission or Washington OU is progressing toward its
objective(s), but alone cannot tell a Mission or Washington OU why such progress
is or is not being made.

Performance indicators are required in a few specific places within the Program
Cycle to measure the performance of expected results that are key to a Mission or
Washington OU’s portfolio. Expected results that require at least one performance
indicator are:

● Each IR identified in the CDCS Results Framework;

● Each sub-IR identified in the CDCS Results Framework;

● Any Project Purpose that is not aligned to a single IR or single sub-IR; and

● Other key project performance indicators to measure significant and relevant

expected project outcomes below the Project Purpose that are necessary for
managing the project, as determined during project design.

Performance indicators are also required to fulfill reporting requirements. These

required performance indicators include standard foreign assistance indicators
needed annually for the PPR (see the annual Guidance for Performance Plan
and Report).

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 114

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Context Indicators: These indicators measure factors outside the control of USAID
that have the potential to affect the achievement of expected results. Context
indicators may be tracked at any level of a Results Framework or logic model.
Context indicators may be used to track country/regional context; programmatic
assumptions of strategies, projects and activities; and operational context.

B. Selecting Indicators

Selecting indicators is a balance between:

● The quantity and quality of indicator data needed for management decision
making and reporting on strategies, projects, and activities, and

● The management and financial resources required to collect and analyze

those indicators.

The PMP and Project and Activity MEL Plans should include as many or as few
performance indicators as necessary to ensure that progress toward expected
results is sufficiently tracked, while also being cost effective by eliminating
redundant indicators. Missions and Washington OUs must also select indicators as
required to report results in the annual PPR or other required reporting documents
or processes.

C. Changing Indicators

During project implementation, Missions and Washington OUs may need to

change, drop, or add indicators. Indicators may need to be adjusted, for example,
to match changes in the scope or direction of strategies and projects; to address
problems with the cost or practicality of data collection, or to take advantage of
new monitoring opportunities that become available during implementation.
However, Missions and Washington OUs should be cautious about changing
performance indicators, because it compromises the comparability of performance
data over time.

Missions and Washington OUs have the authority to approve changes to PMPs
and Project MEL Plans and are responsible for documenting these changes when
updating these plans. At the level of an award, the AOR/COR/GATR approves
changes to the Activity MEL Plan in collaboration with the partner. For changes to
performance indicators, Missions and Washington OUs must note the reason(s) for
the change, along with final values for all old performance indicators and baseline
values for any new performance indicators.

D. Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 115

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

The collection and maintenance of performance indicator reference information,

included in a Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS), promotes data
quality and consistency across Missions and Washington OUs. The PIRS
documents the definition, purpose, and methodology of the indicator to ensure all
parties collecting and using the indicator have the same understanding of its
content.

A Performance Indicator Reference Sheet is required for all performance indicators

and must be complete and sufficient within three months of the start of indicator
data collection. When possible, a PIRS should be complete prior to data collection
to ensure the indicator and its data collection methodology are clearly defined. This
is critical to promote data quality.

A PIRS must be consistent across all activities collecting data for the same
indicator within a Mission or Washington OU. An indicator’s PIRS must be
accessible by relevant Mission or Washington OU staff using that indicator and
shared with partners who will be collecting data for that indicator.

The standard USAID PIRS Template is recommended, but indicator reference

information may also be stored in an information system. Required indicator
reference information for performance indicators are described in ADS 201maf,
Performance Indicator Reference Information and PIRS Template.

While not required, it is recommended that context indicators have completed

indicator reference information, stored in a Context Indicator Reference Sheet
(CIRS).

E. Indicator Baseline

The indicator baseline is the value of an indicator before major implementation

actions of USAID-supported strategies, projects, or activities. Baseline data enable
the tracking of changes that occurred during the project or the activity with the
resources allocated to that project or activity.

All performance indicators are required to have baseline data. Baseline data
should be collected before implementation of an intervention. If baseline data
cannot be collected until later in the course of a strategy, project, or activity, the
indicator’s PIRS should document when and how the baseline data will be
collected.

While not required, it is recommended that context indicators have baseline data.

F. Indicator Target

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 116

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
The indicator target is the specific, planned level of result to be achieved within a
specific timeframe with a given level of resources. Targets should be ambitious but
achievable given USAID (and potentially other donor or partner) inputs. Missions
and Washington OUs are accountable for assessing progress against their targets.
Rationales for targets aid in understanding deviations from targets in actual data
and help ensure continuity of target setting over time. Rationales for targets should
be maintained and updated in a PIRS.

Targets must be set for performance indicators. Missions and Washington OUs, in
consultation with the implementing partner as needed, must establish targets for
each performance indicator prior to reporting actual data.

Context indicators do not have targets; however, it may be useful to set a trigger
for context indicators. A trigger is a value or threshold which, if crossed would
prompt an action, such as reexamination of the Results Framework or logic model.

G. Indicator Disaggregation

Disaggregating indicator data is valuable for understanding and using indicator

data. Disaggregated data are indicator data broken out by key categories of
interest (such as demographic characteristics).

Each reported disaggregate of a performance indicator must have the same data
type and reporting frequency as the aggregated value of the performance indicator.
Each disaggregate of a performance indicator must have a calculated baseline.
When useful for programming or learning purposes, disaggregated data should
have a projected target (see Disaggregating Monitoring Data for additional
guidance).

Sex: Performance indicators must be disaggregated by sex when measuring

person-level data (see ADS 205).

Geography: It is recommended that indicator data be disaggregated by a

geographical level that is feasible and useful for management purposes.

Missions and Washington OUs should determine if any additional disaggregated

data are useful for effective monitoring and achievement of results. These may
include age, marital status, and possible other considerations related to sector and
country context (see Monitoring Data Disaggregation by Geographic Location
for additional guidance).

H. Indicator Data

Performance indicator data must be stored in an indicator tracking table or

monitoring information system. Performance indicator data include baseline

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 117

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
values, the baseline timeframe, targets, and actual values. Tracking tables or
information systems to store indicator data may also include narrative fields for
describing a rationale for each target and deviations from a target. A Mission may
also include context indicator data and other monitoring data in a tracking table or
information system. Tracking tables or information systems must be updated per
the reporting frequency set in the PIRS.

Monitoring information systems that will serve as a centralized repository and

enable analysis of monitoring data collected for PMPs and Project and Activity
MEL plans are recommended over decentralized tracking tables and other formats
that do not enable Mission-wide analysis. No one Agency-wide system is
prescribed.

Missions and Washington OUs must protect USAID beneficiaries by preventing the
unauthorized access and use of personally identifiable information collected for
indicator data reporting. For additional resources on information about proper
handling of information about individuals, see ADS 508, Privacy Program.

201.3.5.8 Monitoring Data Quality

Effective Date: 06/20/2017

There is always a trade-off between the cost and the quality of data. Missions and
Washington OUs should balance these two factors to ensure that the data used are of
sufficiently high quality to support management needs.

A. Data Quality Standards

Missions and Washington OUs may use a variety of data sources for their
monitoring needs. To ensure that the quality of evidence from a performance
monitoring system is sufficient for decision making, data quality standards must be
addressed. High-quality data are the cornerstone for evidence-based decision
making. To be useful for monitoring and credible for reporting, data should
reasonably meet these five standards of data quality:

Validity: Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result.

Integrity: Data collected should have safeguards to minimize the risk of

transcription error or data manipulation.

Precision: Data should have a sufficient level of detail to permit management

decision making.

Reliability: Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and
analysis methods over time.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 118

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Timeliness: Data should be available at a useful frequency, should be current, and
should be timely enough to influence management decision making.

Data that do not meet these standards could result in an erosion of confidence in
the data or could lead to poor decision making. Ensuring data quality requires
strong leadership and commitment throughout the Mission and Washington OU.

B. Data Quality Assessments (DQA)

The purpose of a Data Quality Assessment is to ensure that USAID staff are aware
of:

● Strengths and weaknesses of indicator data, as determined by applying the

five data quality standards; and

● Extent to which data integrity can be trusted to influence management

decisions.

Missions and Washington OUs must conduct a DQA for each performance
indicator reported to external entities. This includes all indicators reported in the
PPR or other external reporting. The DQA must occur after data have been
collected on a new indicator and within 12 months prior to the new indicator data
being reported. A DQA must be conducted every three years thereafter. When
setting targets for a new indicator, the Mission or Washington OU may conduct a
preliminary assessment of data quality as a part of the target setting process.
Missions and Washington OUs may choose to conduct DQAs more frequently if
needed.

Missions and Washington OUs must document the results of DQAs. When data do
not meet one or more of these standards, Missions and Washington OUs should
document the limitations and establish plans for addressing the limitations.
Missions and Washington OUs should file the completed documentation with the
relevant PIRS (see ADS 201sae, USAID Recommended Data Quality
Assessment (DQA) Checklist and How-To Note: Conducting a Data Quality
Assessment for additional guidance).

201.3.5.9 Evaluation
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of information about the

characteristics and outcomes of strategies, projects, and activities conducted as a basis
for judgments to improve effectiveness, and timed to inform decisions about current and
future programming. Evaluation is distinct from assessment or an informal review of
projects.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 119

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
The purpose of evaluations is twofold: to ensure accountability to stakeholders and to
learn to improve development outcomes. The subject of a USAID evaluation may
include any level of USAID programming, from a strategy to a project, individual award,
activity, intervention, or even cross-cutting programmatic priority.

Tools and guidance for planning, managing, and learning from evaluations are available
in the USAID Evaluation Toolkit.

201.3.5.10 Principles of Evaluation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Evaluations at USAID should be:

● Integrated into the Design of Strategies, Projects, and Activities: Planning

for evaluation and identifying key evaluation questions at the outset will both
improve the quality of strategy development and project design and guide data
collection during implementation.

● Unbiased in Measurement and Reporting: Evaluations will be undertaken so

that they are not subject to the perception or reality of biased measurement or
reporting due to conflict of interest or other factors.

● Relevant: Evaluations will address the most important and relevant questions
about strategies, projects, or activities.

● Based on Best Methods: Evaluations will use methods that generate the
highest-quality, and most credible evidence that corresponds to the questions
being asked, taking into consideration time, budget, and other practical
considerations.

● Oriented toward Reinforcing Local Ownership: The conduct of evaluations

will be consistent with institutional aims of local ownership through respectful
engagement with all partners, including local beneficiaries and stakeholders,
while leveraging and building local evaluation capacity.

● Transparent: Findings from evaluations will be shared as widely as possible with

a commitment to full and active disclosure.

201.3.5.11 Missions and Washington Operating Unit Roles for Evaluation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Each Mission and Washington OU Program Office must identify an evaluation POC
responsible for ensuring compliance with ADS evaluation policies across the breadth of
the Mission and Washington OU’s projects and activities and interacting with the
Regional and Pillar Bureau evaluation points of contact and with PPL/LER.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 120

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

A. Mission Program Office

Mission Program Offices will manage external evaluations for all but the most
exceptional cases to encourage independence of external evaluations. Mission
Program Offices will lead the process of planning evaluations, develop a budget
estimate for the evaluations to be undertaken during the following fiscal year,
support identification of appropriate evaluation procurement mechanisms, and
organize in-house peer technical reviews to assess ADS compliance and quality of
evaluation SOWs. Mission Program Offices will also organize in-house peer
technical reviews to assess ADS compliance and quality of draft evaluation
reports, ensure final evaluation reports are posted to the Development
Experience Clearinghouse (DEC), report evaluation data in the PPR, and lead
the process of developing post-evaluation action plans.

B. Mission Technical Office

Mission Technical Offices will provide substantive technical input to the

development of the evaluation SOW; ensure that implementing partners of the
project or activity that will be evaluated are aware of any planned evaluations, the
timeline, and the scope of their expected engagement; ensure that the evaluation
team has all relevant background materials detailed in the SOW; provide additional
documents, as feasible, upon the request of the evaluation team; provide technical
input during the review of the evaluation design and draft evaluation report; and
participate in discussion of post-evaluation action planning.

C. Washington OUs

Washington OUs support Missions in fulfilling evaluation requirements by

participating in peer reviews of evaluation SOWs and draft evaluation reports,
assisting in the development of Mission-wide PMPs and Project and Activity MEL
Plans, reviewing PPR evaluation data, and provide other support as requested by
Missions.

Washington OUs must follow evaluation guidance described in sections 201.3.5.9

through 201.3.5.18. Washington OUs may develop Bureau-specific guidance for
the division of evaluation management responsibilities between Program Offices
and Technical Offices provided that evaluation independence is addressed and
protected.

For detailed information about staff roles and responsibilities for evaluation, see ADS
201sal, Staff Roles and Responsibilities for Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning.

201.3.5.12 Impact and Performance Evaluations

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 121

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Effective Date: 09/07/2016

USAID categorizes evaluations as impact or performance evaluations depending on the

purpose, evaluation questions, and the corresponding design.

Impact Evaluations: These measure the change in a development outcome that is

attributable to a defined intervention. Impact evaluations are based on models of cause
and effect and require a credible and rigorously defined counterfactual to control for
factors other than the intervention that might account for the observed change.

Performance Evaluations: These encompass a broad range of evaluation methods.

They often incorporate before–after comparisons but generally lack a rigorously defined
counterfactual. Performance evaluations may address descriptive, normative, and/or
cause-and-effect questions. Performance evaluation questions may include, but are not
limited to, the following topics:

● What a particular strategy, project, or activity has achieved;

● How it is being implemented;

● How it is perceived and valued;

● Contribution of USAID assistance to the results achieved;

● Possible unintended outcomes from USAID assistance; and

● Other questions pertinent to strategy, project or activity design, management,

and operational decision-making.

No single evaluation design or approach will be privileged over others; rather, the
selection of method or methods for a particular evaluation should principally consider
the appropriateness of the evaluation design for answering the evaluation questions as
well as balance cost, feasibility, and the level of rigor needed to inform specific
decisions.

201.3.5.13 Evaluation Requirements

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

OUs should devote approximately 3 percent of total program funding to external

evaluation on average. This may include a mix of both required and non-required
external evaluations (see Calculating Mission and Washington OU Spending on
Evaluations).

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 122

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Evaluations should be considered by Missions in the CDCS and by all Washington OUs
in the early stages of project and activity design to ensure adequate planning and
implementation. Evaluations are required in three instances:

Requirement 1: Each Mission and Washington OU that manages program funds and
designs and implements projects as described in 201.3.3 must conduct at least one
evaluation per project. The evaluation may address the project as a whole, a single
activity or intervention, a set of activities or interventions within the project, questions
related to the project that were identified in the PMP or Project MEL Plan, or cross-
cutting issues within the project.

Requirement 2: Each Mission and Washington OU must conduct an impact evaluation,

if feasible, of any new, untested approach that is anticipated to be expanded in scale or
scope through U.S. Government foreign assistance or other funding sources (i.e., a pilot
intervention). Pilot interventions should be identified during project or activity design,
and the impact evaluation should be integrated into the design of the project or activity.
If it is not feasible to effectively undertake an impact evaluation, the Mission or
Washington OU must conduct a performance evaluation and document why an impact
evaluation wasn’t feasible. An evaluation of a pilot intervention may count as one of the
evaluations required under Requirement 1.

Requirement 3: Each Mission must conduct at least one “whole-of-project”

performance evaluation within their CDCS timeframe. Whole-of-project performance
evaluations examine an entire project, including all its constituent activities and progress
toward the achievement of the Project Purpose. A whole-of-project evaluation may
count as one of the evaluations required under Requirement 1.

All Missions and Washington OUs may conduct non-required evaluations for learning or
management purposes as needed at any point in implementation of the strategy,
project, or activity (see ADS 201saf, Evaluation Triggers).

Although evaluations should be planned during project and activity design, there is no
Agency-wide requirement concerning when an evaluation must be conducted in relation
to the timeframe of the activity or project being evaluated. Evaluations may be mid-term,
final, ex-post, or conducted at any time that is appropriate for the decisions that the
evaluation is designed to inform. Nor is there a requirement related to the overall length
of time of an evaluation, as both impact and performance evaluations may include
multiple periods of data collection and analysis. Evaluations should be timed so that
their findings can inform decisions such as, but not limited to, course corrections,
exercising option years, designing a follow-on project, or creating a country or sector
strategic plan. For more information, see Whole of Project Evaluation.

201.3.5.14 Evaluation Independence

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 123

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Evaluations conducted to meet evaluation requirements described in 201.3.5.13 must
be external—i.e., led by an expert external to USAID who has no fiduciary relationship
with the implementing partner—mitigating the potential for conflicts of interest. The
outside expert may come from another U.S. Government agency uninvolved in project
implementation or be engaged through an A&A mechanism. In cases where a Mission’s
or Washington OU’s management determines that appropriate expertise exists within
the Agency, and that engaging USAID staff in an evaluation will facilitate institutional
learning, an external evaluation team may include USAID staff under the direction of the
external team leader.

For external evaluations, all external evaluation team members will provide a signed
statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict of
interest relative to the project or activity being evaluated.

In Missions, external evaluations must be managed by Program Office staff to enhance

evaluation independence. Program Office staff should be supported by Technical Office
team members, other knowledgeable members of a U.S. Government operating unit, or
partner organizations. Exceptions to Program Office management of external
evaluations may be approved by the Mission Director, provided that efforts are taken to
separate the management of the evaluation from the management of the project or
activity under evaluation.

Washington OUs may develop Bureau-specific guidance for the division of evaluation
management responsibilities between Program Offices and Technical Offices provided
that evaluation independence is addressed and protected.

Internal evaluations are those that are either: 1) commissioned by USAID in which the
evaluation team leader is USAID staff (a USAID internal evaluation); or 2) conducted or
commissioned by an implementing partner—or consortium of implementing partner and
evaluator—concerning their own activity (an implementer internal evaluation). Funding
may be dedicated within a project or activity design for implementing partners to engage
in an internal evaluation for institutional learning or accountability purposes. However,
internal evaluations do not count toward the evaluation requirements described in
201.3.5.13. To the extent possible, internal evaluations should follow the same
processes and procedures as described in sections 201.3.5.15 through 201.3.5.18.
Internal evaluations are subject to the same evaluation report requirements and quality
criteria as external evaluations as described in 201.3.5.17.

201.3.5.15 Planning Evaluations

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Mission and Washington OUs should be actively involved in evaluation planning to

ensure the final product is useful. Stakeholders, including beneficiaries, partner country
partners, implementing partners, other USAID and U.S. Government entities, should be

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 124

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
engaged to inform the development and prioritization of evaluation questions. Missions
and Washington OUs should consider joint evaluations with other development actors.

Missions must develop and update their Mission evaluation plan in the Mission PMP
(see 201.3.5.4) as evaluations are planned.

Regardless of an evaluation’s scope, the Mission or Washington OU planning process

should involve the following steps:

● Clarify the evaluation purpose, audience, and timing.

● Review and understand the development hypothesis or theory of change.

● Review past evaluations and research that could inform evaluation planning.

● Identify the type of desired evaluation (performance or impact).

● Identify a small number of evaluation questions (1-5 questions are

recommended) that are answerable with empirical evidence.

● Consider data availability and quality.

● Consider evaluation methods that are rigorous and appropriate to the evaluation.

● Consider appropriate expertise needed.

● Consider evaluation products and channels for dissemination.

For more information, see Developing an Evaluation SOW.

These steps should be used to inform the evaluation SOW, which provides the
framework for the evaluation and communicates the evaluation questions (see ADS
201mab, USAID Evaluation Statement of Work Requirements). The evaluation SOW
is needed to implement evaluations through external entities and also serves to guide
internal evaluations with modifications as appropriate.

To ensure a high-quality evaluation SOW that adheres to requirements, the draft SOW
must undergo a peer review organized by the office managing the evaluation. Missions
and Washington OUs may involve peers from relevant regional and/or pillar bureaus in
the review process as appropriate (see ADS 201sah, Evaluation SOW Peer Review
Process).

Missions and Washington OUs must plan for dissemination and use of the planned
evaluation. Missions or Washington OUs should consider how key partners and other

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 125

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
development actors would best receive evaluation information and plan their
communications products accordingly (see ADS 201saj, Developing an Evaluation
Dissemination Plan).

201.3.5.16 Evaluation Implementation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

While the SOW will propose evaluation questions and recommended methods, the
questions and methods may be altered once the evaluation team is recruited and further
develops the evaluation design. Such revisions are permitted as part of the evaluation
design process but should be made in consultation and agreement with USAID and be
appropriately documented.

Evaluations must be conducted by individuals with appropriate training and experience,

including, but not limited to, evaluation specialists. To the extent possible, evaluation
specialists with appropriate expertise from partner countries, but not involved in project
implementation, will lead and/or be included in evaluation teams.

The CO may have to place restrictions on an evaluation contractor’s future work due to
organizational conflicts of interest (see ADS 302).

Evaluations will use methods that generate the highest-quality and most credible
evidence that corresponds to the questions being asked, taking into consideration time,
budget, and other practical considerations. A combination of qualitative and quantitative
methods applied in a systematic and structured way yields valuable findings and is often
optimal regardless of evaluation design. Impact evaluations must use experimental
methods (randomization) or quasi-experimental methods and may supplement these
with other qualitative or quantitative methods to increase understanding of how or why
an intervention achieved or didn’t achieve an expected impact.

For USAID evaluations of all types, the methods, main features of data collection
instruments, data analysis plans, as well as the key questions must be described in a
written evaluation design by the evaluators. Except in unusual circumstances, the key
elements of the design must be shared with implementing partners of the projects or
activities addressed in the evaluation and with related funders before being finalized.
After finalization of the design, it must be shared with the relevant implementing
partners and funders and be made available upon request to development actors in a
format deemed appropriate by the Mission or Washington OU.

Missions and Washington OUs are responsible for actively overseeing the work of
evaluation teams over the course of the evaluation, including, but not limited to,
reviewing evaluation designs and work plans, data collection and analysis plans and
tools, and draft or interim products and reports. Mission and Washington OUs should
ensure that evaluations are conducted with ethical integrity and respect for the dignity
and rights of evaluation participants and stakeholders.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 126

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

201.3.5.17 Evaluation Reports

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

To ensure a high-quality evaluation report, the draft report must undergo a peer review
organized by the office managing the evaluation. The evaluation report should be
reviewed against ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation
Report. Missions and Washington OUs may also involve peers from relevant regional
and/or pillar bureaus in the review process as appropriate (see ADS 201sai, Managing
the Peer Review of a Draft Evaluation Report).

Draft reports must be shared with implementing partners of the projects or activities
addressed in the evaluation and with related funders. Implementers, funders, and
members of the evaluation team must be given the opportunity to write an individual
statement of difference regarding any significant unresolved differences of opinion, to
be attached to the final evaluation report.

Evaluation reports must meet the requirements described in ADS 201mah, USAID
Evaluation Report Requirements. Evaluation reports must also conform to USAID
branding requirements (see ADS 320, Branding and Marking) and comply with section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act (see ADS 302mak, USAID Implementation of Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).

201.3.5.18 Evaluation Utilization

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The value of an evaluation is in its use. Evaluations should be distributed widely, inform
decision making, and contribute to learning to help improve the quality of development
programs.

A. Responding to Evaluation Findings

To help ensure that institutional learning takes place and evaluation findings
are used to improve development outcomes, Mission and Washington OUs
must develop a post-evaluation action plan upon completion of an evaluation.
The following steps must be taken to develop the post-evaluation action plan:

● Review the key findings, conclusions, and recommendations

systematically.

● Determine and document whether the Mission or Washington OU

accepts/supports each conclusion or recommendation.

● Identify any management or other program actions needed based on

the evaluation findings, conclusions, or recommendations. This may

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 127

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
include changes to strategy, projects, activities, or other planning
frameworks.

● Assign responsibility and the time frame for completion of each set of
actions.

● Document the expected actions based on the evaluation,

responsibilities, time frames, and completion of actions in a post-
evaluation action plan.

B. Dissemination of Evaluations

Missions and Washington OUs will promote transparency and learning by

disseminating evaluations when the evaluation report has been completed.
Missions and OUs should follow the dissemination plan developed during the
evaluation planning stage. Missions and OUs should openly discuss
evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations with relevant
partners, donors, and other development actors.

Evaluation reports, including all Annexes to the report, must be made publicly
available by being submitted to the Development Experience
Clearinghouse within three months of the evaluation’s conclusion (see ADS
540, USAID Development Experience Information for standards and other
requirements for material submitted to the DEC). In exceptional cases,
Missions and Washington OUs may request an exemption to the requirement
to publish the report publicly on the DEC (see ADS 201mae, Limitations to
Disclosure and Exemptions to Public Dissemination of USAID
Evaluation Reports and ADS 201sag, Action Memo Template for
Exception to Public Disclosure of USAID-Funded Evaluation).

Missions and Washington OUs will provide the relevant requested information
about planned, ongoing and completed evaluations in the Evaluation Registry
during the annual PPR process. Non-sensitive information derived from the
Registry about ongoing and completed evaluations may be communicated to
the public on the USAID website.

Missions and Washington OUs must ensure that USAID implementing

partners submit datasets—and supporting documentation such as code
books, data dictionaries, scope, and methodology used to collect and analyze
the data—compiled under USAID-funded evaluations to the Development
Data Library (see ADS 579).

201.3.5.19 Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 128

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Strategic collaboration, continuous learning, and adaptive management link together all
components of the Program Cycle. Sources for learning include data from monitoring,
portfolio reviews, findings of research, evaluations, analyses conducted by USAID or
third parties, knowledge gained from experience, and other sources.

These sources should be used to develop plans, implement projects, manage

adaptively, and contribute to USAID’s knowledge base in order to improve development
outcomes. A Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA) focus helps ensure that
programming is coordinated together, grounded in evidence, and adjusted as necessary
to remain relevant and effective throughout implementation.

An intentional, systematic, and resourced approach to CLA includes:

● Generating, capturing, sharing, analyzing, and applying information and

knowledge, including performance monitoring data, findings from evaluations,
research, practice, and experience;

● Understanding the theory of change behind programming, identifying potential

gaps in technical knowledge, and developing plans to fill them;

● Engaging with key stakeholders, including local thought leaders, beneficiaries,

partner country partners, and other development actors to understand the
country context, design projects and activities appropriately, and keep abreast of
changes;

● Coordinating efforts within the Mission and among partners and other
development actors to increase synergies and sharing with other USAID
Missions and bureaus to extend the Mission’s influence and impact beyond its
project funding;

● Pausing periodically to reflect on new learning and knowledge and adapting

accordingly; and

● Ensuring that sufficient resources are mobilized to support these processes.

Tools and guidance on planning for and implementing CLA approaches are
available in the USAID CLA Toolkit.

201.3.5.20 Principles for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Key considerations for CLA approaches in the Program Cycle include the following:

● CLA efforts should build upon and reinforce existing processes and practices as
much as possible rather than creating new ones. Instituting these approaches
takes time, and change is likely to be incremental.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 129

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

● Collaboration and coordination should be approached strategically. Collaboration

helps break down sectoral and institutional stovepipes; validates USAID
programs against experience and local/contextual knowledge; and enhances the
ability of partner country governments, organizations, commercial actors, and
individuals to define and pursue their development agendas while informing
USAID’s work. While the value of collaboration is clear, it takes time and so
should be guided by Mission priorities.

● Tacit, experiential, and contextual knowledge are crucial complements to

research and evidence-based knowledge. USAID should value and use all forms
of knowledge in the development of strategies, projects, and activities and the
ways to manage them adaptively.

● Implementing partners and local and regional actors play a central role in
USAID’s efforts to be a learning organization. Knowledge and learning should be
documented, disseminated, and used to help spread effective practices widely
for improved development.

201.3.5.21 Mission Roles for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Staff across the Mission should be engaged in using CLA approaches across the
Program Cycle. Learning is a part of everyone's role. However, the responsibility for
CLA functions is housed in the Program Office, which will oversee certain key learning
activities, including the portfolio review process and maintaining the CLA plan in the
Mission’s PMP. Missions may consider hiring or assigning a learning advisor to ensure
that learning efforts are strategic and focused.

For detailed information about staff roles and responsibilities for CLA, see ADS 201sal,
Staff Roles and Responsibilities for Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning.

201.3.5.22 Planning for Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

Missions should integrate CLA throughout strategy, project, and activity planning and
implementation. CLA includes many potential elements, and the areas of focus for each
Mission will vary depending on the operating context, budget, and other factors.

To plan effectively for CLA, teams should reflect on the current state of their learning
practice, decide on priority areas of focus, and develop a plan that addresses those
priorities. As CLA is a context-dependent and flexible approach, each Missions CLA
plan will be different. Missions may use the CLA Maturity Matrix assessment and
planning tool to help analyze their current work and decide where to focus future CLA

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 130

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
efforts. For more information, see Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA)
Maturity Matrix Overview.

The CLA plan in the PMP and the learning sections of Project and Activity MEL Plans
should address the following four elements: collaboration, gaps in knowledge, plans to
pause and reflect on progress made, and resources for CLA (see below). These plans
should also include information on roles and responsibilities. A template is available, or
Missions may use another format to meet their needs.

For more information, see Drafting a Collaborating, Learning and Adapting Plan.

201.3.5.23 Using Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting Approaches

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

CLA practices should be embedded throughout the Program Cycle. The level of
attention paid to certain activities and processes will vary by Mission, but Missions
should focus on, at minimum, four essential components:

(1) Strategic collaboration with key partners, both within USAID and externally, at the
design phase and during implementation. At the strategy level, for example, this
could include planning for collaboration among and between technical, DO,
project or support offices and teams; processes for engaging with development
actors for input and feedback on the strategy, programs, and context in an
ongoing way; or plans for Mission-wide fora to share knowledge and learning
gained from the implementation of projects or evaluations.

(2) Identifying knowledge gaps during strategy development or project design and
implementing plans to address them through evaluations, use of monitoring data,
assessments, or other means.

(3) Regularly taking opportunities to reflect on progress and using that knowledge to
adapt accordingly. Opportunities for reflection include portfolio reviews, CDCS
mid-course stocktaking exercises, after-action reviews, partner meetings, and
others.

(4) Determining how to resource (through staff, funding, and/or implementing

mechanisms) CLA processes and activities.

CLA approaches are affected by the organizational culture and are more likely to take
root in a Mission with a supportive environment. A learning organization supports
questioning assumptions actively, seeking evidence, reflecting, and exploring a range of
solutions to development problems. Mission management should exhibit support by
committing resources and encouraging staff to learn and adapt to change. Missions
may decide, based on the results of the CLA Maturity Matrix assessment or other

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 131

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
planning, to focus on issues—such as openness, institutional memory, and knowledge
sources—as part of the CLA plan in the PMP.

Transforming into a more effective learning organization requires sustained

commitment. Progress can be slow and is likely to be non-linear. As with any change
initiative, it is important to make time for regular reflection on progress. By repeating the
CLA Maturity Matrix assessment or other tools at regular intervals—in preparation for or
as part of an annual portfolio review, for example—Missions can determine where they
are seeing increases or reductions in CLA maturity, and whether improvements align
with the goals identified during the initial assessment or if priorities have shifted.

201.3.5.24 Accessibility of Program Cycle Documentation

Effective Date: 09/07/2016

The USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) provides Agency staff,

development partners, and the public with accurate, comprehensive, and timely
information on the Agency's development experience. Mission and Washington
Operating Units must submit relevant and appropriate Program Cycle planning, design,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and learning documentation created by the
Agency and its implementing partners to the DEC. Guidance regarding which Program
Cycle materials must be submitted to the DEC, w ho must submit Program Cycle
materials to the DEC, and standards for Program Cycle materials submitted to the DEC
are described in ADS 540, Development Experience Information.

201.4 MANDATORY REFERENCES

201.4.1 External Mandatory References

Effective Date: 05/24/2018

a. 2 CFR 200.328, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and

Audit Requirements for Federal Awards- Monitoring and reporting program
performance

b. 22 CFR Part 211, Transfer of Food Commodities for Food Use in Disaster
Relief, Economic Development, and other Assistance

c. 22 CFR Part 216, Agency Environmental Procedures

d. 22 U.S.C. 2151, Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016

e. 22 U.S.C § 2361, Completion of Plans and Cost Estimates (Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961, Section 611(a))

f. 22 U.S.C. § 2451, Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961

(Fulbright-Hays Act)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 132

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
g. 22 U.S.C. 32, Foreign Assistance (Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961, as
amended)

h. 29 U.S.C. § 794 (d) Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended

i. 31 U.S.C. § 39, Prompt Pay (Federal Prompt Payment Act)

j. 31 U.S.C. § 901, Agency Chief Financial Officers (Chief Financial Officers

Act of 1990)

k. 31 U.S.C. § 1115, Federal Government and Agency Performance Plans

(Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, as
amended)

l. 31 U.S.C. Section 1341, Limitations on Expending and Obligating Amounts

(includes the Federal Anti-Deficiency Act)

m. 31 U.S.C. 1501, Documentary Evidence Requirement for Government

Obligations

n. 31 U.S.C. § 6301-6308, (Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act)

o. 48 CFR Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)

p. Executive Order 13279, as amended, Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-
Based and Community Organizations

q. Executive Order 13642—Making Open and Machine Readable the New

Default for Government Information

r. FISMA: Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002

s. FITARA Implementation Guidance: M-15- 14: Management and Oversight of

Federal Information Technology

t. FITARA: Title VIII, Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, P.L. 113-291

u. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 05-01 Developing and

Managing the Acquisition Workforce

v. Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11-01, Performance of

Inherently Governmental and Critical Functions (September 12, 2011)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 133

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
w. OMB Bulletin 12-01, Guidance on Collection of U.S. Foreign Assistance
Data

x. OMB Circular A-11, Instructions on Budget Execution

y. OMB Circular A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control

z. OMB Memorandum M-13- 13, Open Data Policy-Managing Information as an

Asset

aa. OMB Memorandum M-18-04, Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines for

Federal Departments and Agencies that Administer United States Foreign
Assistance

ab. P.L. 103-356, Government Management Reform Act [GMRA] of 1994

ac. P.L. 104-208 - Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996,

beyond original FMFIA [FFMIA]

ad. U.S. Department of State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan

201.4.2 Internal Mandatory References

Effective Date: 03/10/2020

a. Acquisition & Assistance Policy Directive (AAPD) 16-02

b. ADS 200, Development Policy

c. ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report

d. ADS 201mab, USAID Evaluation Statement of Work Requirements

e. ADS 201mac, Index of Existing and Planned Projects for USAID

f. ADS 201mad, Legal Requirements Summary Checklist

g. ADS 201mae, Limitations to Disclosure and Exemptions to Public

Dissemination of USAID Evaluation Reports

h. ADS 201maf, Performance Indicator Reference Data and PIRS Template

i. ADS 201mag, Process for Developing and Approving a Country

Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS)

j. ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 134

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
k. ADS 201mai, Activity Approval Memorandum (AAM) Template

l. ADS 201maj, Contingency Operations

m. ADS 201mak, Country Transition Planning

n. ADS 201mal, Climate Risk Management for USAID Projects and Activities

o. ADS 201man, Process for Obtaining Mission Concurrence for Washington

and Regional Mission Funded Activities

p. ADS 201mas, Counter Trafficking in Persons (C-TIP) Code of Conduct

Guidance

q. ADS 201mat, Climate Change in USAID Country/Regional Strategies

r. ADS 201mau, Guidance on the Definition and Use of the Global Health
Programs Account

s. ADS 201mav, Foreign Assistance Act Sections 118 and 119 Tropical
Forests and Biodiversity Analysis

t. ADS 201maw, Construction Risk Management

u. ADS 201max, Regional and Country Development Cooperation Strategy

Updates, Amendments and Extensions

v. ADS 201may, Key Considerations for Programming in Politically Sensitive

Countries

w. ADS 204, Environmental Procedures

x. ADS 205, Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in

USAID’s Program Cycle

y. ADS 220, Use and Strengthening of Reliable Partner Government

Systems for Implementation of Direct Assistance

z. ADS 249, Development Credit Authority (DCA)

aa. ADS 300, Agency Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Planning

ab. ADS 302, USAID Direct Contracting

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 135

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
ac. ADS 303, Grants and Cooperative Agreements to Non-Governmental
Organizations

ad. ADS 304, Selecting the Appropriate Acquisition and Assistance (A&A)
Instrument

ae. ADS 306, Interagency Agreements

af. ADS 308, Agreements with Public International Organizations

ag. ADS 320, Branding and Marking

ah. ADS 351, Agreements with Bilateral Donors

ai. ADS 508, Privacy Program

aj. ADS 509, Management and Oversight of Information Technology

Resources

ak. ADS 540, USAID Development Experience Information

al. ADS 579, USAID Development Data

am. ADS 579mab, Activity Location Data

an. ADS 597, Operations Performance Policy

ao. ADS 602, Forward Funding, Program Funds

ap. ADS 621, Obligations

aq. ADS 631, Accrued Expenditures

ar. AIDAR

as. Contract Information Bulletins (CIBs)

at. Climate Change in USAID Strategies

au. Foreign Assistance Act

av. Geographic Codes

aw. Guidance on how to Close a USAID Mission - Checklist

ax. Guidance on the Definition and Use of the Child Survival and Health

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 136

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

ay. Guidance on the Definition and Use of the Global Health Programs Account

az. How to Choose between 632(a) and 632(b) - Memoranda of Understanding

and Inter-Agency Agreements

ba. Implementation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

bb. Local Systems – A Framework for Supporting Sustainable Development

bc. Mandatory Sharing of Projects or Activities with a Significant Counter

Trafficking-in-Persons Component to the Senior Policy Operating Group
(SPOG)

bd. Microenterprise Development

be. Program Assistance Policy Paper

bf. Protection of Human Subjects in Research Supported by USAID

bg. Sample 632(a) Memorandum of Agreement to Transfer Funds From USAID

to Another Agency

bh. Summary Description of FAA Sections 118(e) and 119(d) Requirements for
Preparing Strategic Plans

bi. USAID Political Party Assistance Coordinator

201.5 ADDITIONAL HELP

Effective Date: 10/29/2018

a. Adaptive Management Discussion Note

b. Additional Guidance for 611(e) Certification Involving Construction

Activities

c. ADS 201saa, Results Framework Indicator Annex Template

d. ADS 201sab, Project Financial Plan Template

e. ADS 201sac, Project Management and Implementation Plan Template

f. ADS 201sad, Complexity Aware Monitoring Discussion Note

g. ADS 201sae, USAID Recommended Data Quality Assessment Checklist

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 137

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

h. ADS 201saf, Evaluation Triggers

i. ADS 201sag, Action Memo Template for Exception to Public Disclosure of

USAID-Funded Evaluation

j. ADS 201sah, Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW) Peer Review Process

k. ADS 201sai, Managing the Peer Review of a Draft Evaluation Report

l. ADS 201saj, Developing an Evaluation Dissemination Plan

m. ADS 201sal, Staff Roles and Responsibilities for Monitoring, Evaluation,

and Learning

n. Application of ADS 201 to Washington Operating Units (OU)

o. CDCS Templates and Tools

p. Co-Creation Discussion Note

q. Cost Share in the Program Cycle

r. Discussion Note: Implementing Local Ownership

s. Drafting a Collaborating, Learning and Adapting Plan

t. Foreign Assistance Act Sections 118/119 Tropical Forest and Biodiversity

Analysis Best Practices Guide

u. How-To Note: Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan

v. How-To Note: CDCS Mid-Course Stocktaking

w. How-To Note: Conduct a Data Quality Assessment

x. How-To Note: Developing a Project Logic Model (and its Associated Theory
of Change)

y. How-To Note: Engendering Evaluation at USAID

z. How-To Note: Prepare and Maintain a Performance Management Plan

aa. How-To Note: Project Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Plan

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 138

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
ab. How-To Note: Strategy-Level Portfolio Review

ac. Implementing Mechanism Matrix

ad. Inclusive Growth Diagnostic Guidelines

ae. Local Capacity Development: Suggested Approaches

af. Monitoring Data Disaggregation by Geographic Location

ag. Monitoring & Evaluation for a Government-to-Government Agreement

ah. Project Approval Memorandum Template

ai. Suggested Approaches for Integrating Inclusive Development Across the

Program Cycle and in Mission Operations

aj. Technical Note: PAD Updates and Amendments

ak. Thinking and Working Politically through Applied Political Economy

Analysis (PEA) – Guide and Supporting Materials

al. The 5Rs Framework in the Program Cycle

am. USAID Guidelines: Cost-Benefit Analysis

201.6 DEFINITIONS
Effective Date: 06/11/2019

accountability
The establishment of clear responsibility for reporting on results achieved with a given
level of resources. The primary mechanism for this is the annual reporting process,
known as the Performance Plan and Report. Beyond the annual reporting process, OUs
may document results achieved through portfolio review summaries, evaluations, close-
out reports, or other means. (Chapter 201)

accrual
The estimated cost of goods and/or services or other performance received but not yet
paid for by the Agency. Accruals are calculated for specific instruments and agreements
and help provide current information on the financial status of an activity, project, or DO
(see ADS 631). (Chapter 201)

activity
An activity carries out an intervention, or set of interventions, typically through a
contract, grant, or agreement with another U.S. Government agency or with the partner

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 139

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
country government. An activity also may be an intervention undertaken directly by
Mission staff that contributes to a project, such as a policy dialogue. In most cases,
multiple activities are needed to ensure the synergistic contributions necessary to
achieve the project’s desired results. (Chapter 201)

Activity Manager
An Activity Manager may be designated by the Mission or Washington OU to assist the
COR/AOR in performing certain technical oversight duties of an awarded activity, but
they are not authorized to provide technical direction to implementing partners or any
other action that binds the government based on the COR/AOR designation letter. In
the case of field support implementing mechanisms, the Activity Manager is often
located in the Mission, while the COR/AOR is located in USAID/Washington. (Chapter
201)

Activity Planner (see Planner)

adaptive management
An intentional approach to making decisions and adjustments in response to new
information and changes in context. (Chapter 201)

Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) (see Contracting Officer’s

Representative)

Approval for the Use of Partner Government Systems (AUPGS)

An addendum to the PAD which documents the due diligence requirements and
associated fiduciary risk mitigation plan for using PGS. The AUPGS establishes
USAID’s and the partner government’s fiduciary risk management strategy and
guidelines for the life of the respective project. The AUPGS is incorporated into the
Project Appraisal Document for projects that include G2G activities and must be
completed prior to PAD finalization and Project Authorization. (Chapter 201 and 220)

assessment
A forward-looking process that may be designed to examine country or sector context to
inform strategic planning or project design, or an informal review of a strategy project or
activity. It is distinct from evaluation. (Chapter 201)

assumptions
The stated conditions, behaviors, and/or critical events outside the control of the
strategy, project or activity that must be in place for results to be achieved. Assumptions
form part of the complete theory of change regarding the conditions under which
change is envisioned to occur. (Chapter 201)

attribution

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 140

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Ascribing a causal link between observed changes and a specific intervention. It is the
extent to which the observed change is the result of the intervention, taking into account
all other factors which may also affect the outcome(s) of interest. (Chapter 201)

award
A form of implementing mechanism through which USAID transfers funds to an
implementing partner, generally selected through a competitive process resulting in a
contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. (Chapter 201)

baseline
The value of an indicator before major implementation actions of USAID-supported
strategies, projects, or activities. Baseline data enable the tracking of changes that
occurred during the project or the activity with the resources allocated to that project or
activity. (Chapter 201)

co-creation
Co-creation is a design approach that brings people together to collectively produce a
mutually valued outcome, using a participatory process that assumes some degree of
shared power and decision-making. (Chapter 201)

Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting (CLA)

CLA involves strategic collaboration, continuous learning, and adaptive management.
CLA approaches to development include collaborating intentionally with stakeholders to
share knowledge and reduce duplication of effort, learning systematically by drawing on
evidence from a variety of sources and taking time to reflect on implementation, and
applying learning by adapting intentionally. (Chapter 201)

Collaborating, Learning and Adapting (CLA) Plan

A section of the Performance Management Plan (see PMP) that describes the Mission’s
approach to CLA, including planning for collaboration; identifying and addressing gaps
in knowledge; planning to pause and reflect on progress; and resources for CLA.
(Chapter 201)

context
Conditions and external factors relevant to implementation of USAID strategies,
projects, and activities. Context includes the environmental, economic, social, or
political factors that may affect implementation, as well as how local actors, their
relationships, and the incentives that guide them affect development results. (Chapter
201)

context indicator
A means to monitor factors outside the control of USAID that have the potential to affect
the achievement of expected results. Context indicators may be tracked at any level of a
Results Framework or logic model. Context indicators may be used to track
country/regional context; programmatic assumptions of strategies, projects, and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 141

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
activities; and operational context. Context indicators do not directly measure the results
of USAID activities. (Chapter 201)

context monitoring
The systematic collection of information about conditions and external factors relevant
to the implementation and performance of an OU’s strategy, projects, and activities.
Context monitoring includes the monitoring of local conditions that may directly affect
implementation and performance (such as non-USAID programming operating within
the same sector as USAID programming) or external factors that may indirectly affect
implementation and performance (such as macro-economic, social, or political
conditions). (Chapter 201)

Contingency Operation
Defined in section 101(a)(13) of Title 10, United States Code, Part I – a military
operation that –

1) Is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in which members of

the Armed Forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or
hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military
force; or
2) Results in the call or order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the
Uniformed Services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12304(a),
12305, or 12406 of this title, chapter 15 of this title, section 712 of Title 14, or
any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared
by the President or Congress. (Chapter 201 and 411)

Contracting Officer’s Representative /Agreement Officer’s Representative

The individual who performs functions that are designated by the Contracting or
Agreement Officer, or who is specifically designated by policy or regulation as part of
contract or assistance administration (see Activity Manager and ADS 300). (Chapter
201)

Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS)

The strategy that defines a Mission’s chosen approach in country and provides a focal
point of the broader context for projects and activities. A CDCS presents expected
results within a time-defined period, provides a common vision and an organizing
framework, and summarizes the status of the ongoing portfolio and how that will be
continued, updated, or revised to address new priorities, lessons learned, or changing
circumstances. The CDCS is usually five years long. (Chapter 201)

Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) Goal

The highest-level long-term outcome to be advanced or influenced by USAID and its
development partners. The Goal may be related to US foreign policy interests in a
country or the country’s own national development plan. While USAID is not

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 142

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
accountable for achieving the Goal, the Goal should incorporate the purpose of USAID’s
presence in country and provide guidance for all choices made within a country
strategy. The Mission is responsible for progressing toward the CDCS Goal as it
advances toward achieving the DOs. (Chapter 201)

Country Roadmap
USAID’s primary visualization tool for illustrating each country’s overall level of self-
reliance, and relative strengths and challenges, by looking at performance on each of
the self-reliance metrics that comprise it. While the Country Roadmap cannot capture
every issue and nuance driving self-reliance, it is ultimately meant to serve as
a conceptual anchor and a set of entry points to gauge a country’s overall progress
towards self-reliance, and therefore its relative ability to plan, finance, and manage its
own development journey. The Agency will produce Country Roadmaps for all low- and
middle-income countries on an annual basis and, in so doing, will provide an objective
and inclusive snapshot of the full self-reliance journey that encompasses the entire
developing world -- not just to the extent of USAID’s presence or engagement.
(Chapter 201)

Country Team
An interagency group made up of the head of each State Department section in the
Embassy, the USAID Mission Director, and the heads of the other U.S. government
agencies represented at post. (Chapter 201)

Data Quality Assessment (DQA)

An examination of the quality of performance indicator data in light of the five standards
of data quality (validity, integrity, precision, reliability, and timeliness) to ensure that
decision makers are fully aware of data strengths and weaknesses and the extent to
which data can be relied on when making management decisions and reporting (see
data quality standards). (Chapter 201)

data quality standards

Standards for determining the quality of performance monitoring data for evidence-
based decision making and credible reporting. The five standards of data quality are: 1)
validity, 2) integrity, 3) precision, 4) reliability, and 5) timeliness. (Chapter 201)

Delegation of Authority (DOA)

A document that officially recognizes when an official, vested with certain powers
(authorities), extends that power (authority) to another individual or position within the
chain of command. (Chapter 201)

de-obligation
The process of removing unneeded funds from an obligating instrument. This is typically
done during the annual review process for certification of unliquidated balances and the
separate certification of the validity of recorded obligations and upon completion of

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 143

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
activities when unliquidated obligations might have become excessive or might no
longer be needed for their original purpose. (Chapter 201)

development actors
The range of stakeholders engaged in development efforts in a partner country. These
actors often include the partner country government, civil society, other bilateral and
multilateral organizations, NGOs (both local and international), other U.S. Government
agencies, and the private sector (both local and international). (Chapter 201)

Development Credit Authority (DCA) guarantee

An Agency tool that can be used to assist with mobilizing private capital by providing
credit guarantees to private lenders and investors to encourage them to lend in support
of specific development objectives. (Chapter 201)

development hypothesis
A development hypothesis describes the theory of change, logic, and relationships
between the building blocks needed to achieve or contribute to a long-term result. The
development hypothesis is based on development theory, practice, literature, and
experience; is country-specific; and explains why and how the proposed investments
from USAID and others collectively contribute to, or lead to achieving, the Development
Objectives. It is a short narrative that explains the relationships between results
upwards from the sub-IRs, to the IRs, to the DOs. (Chapter 201)

Development Objective (DO)

Typically the most ambitious result that a Mission, together with its development
partners, can contribute through its interventions. (Chapter 201)

Development Objective Agreement (DOAG)

A bilateral obligating document under which sub-obligations may be made for contracts,
grants, and cooperative agreements; bilateral project agreements; etc. It sets forth a
mutually agreed-upon understanding between USAID and the partner government of
the timeframe; results expected to be achieved; and means of measuring those results,
resources, responsibilities, and contributions of participating entities for achieving a
clearly defined objective. (Chapter 201)

Development Objective (DO) Team

A group of people with complementary skills who are empowered to work toward a
result outlined in a DO. The primary responsibility of a DO Team is to make decisions in
designing and implementing projects that will contribute to the result. Another essential
function is to ensure open communication and collaboration across organizational
boundaries at all phases of the development process. DO Teams may decide to
organize sub-teams if they wish to manage complex projects more efficiently. They are
composed of USAID employees and those partners and customers considered to be
essential for working towards achieving the DO result. (Chapter 201)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 144

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
development policy
Guidance and analysis covering the content and substance of USAID programs.
Development policy includes Agency policies, strategies, and vision papers as well as
U.S. Government policies and those in support of international development
agreements and approaches (see ADS 200). (Chapter 201)

disbursement
The actual payments made by the Agency for goods and services or other performance
under an agreement/instrument using cash, check, or electronic transfer. (Chapter 201)

due diligence
The technical term for the necessary assessment of the past performance, reputation,
and future plans of a prospective alliance partner, private sector, or other entity with
regard to various business practices and principles. This assessment of a prospective
alliance partner would normally involve, at a minimum, examining their social,
environmental, and financial track records. (Chapter 201)

Environmental Impact Statement

A detailed study of the reasonably foreseeable positive and negative environmental
impacts of a proposed USAID action and its reasonable alternatives on the United
States, the global environment, or areas outside the jurisdiction of any nation (see ADS
204 and 22 CFR 216). (Chapter 201)

evaluation (See performance evaluation, impact evaluation)

Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of information about the
characteristics and outcomes of strategies, projects, and activities conducted as a basis
for judgments to improve effectiveness and timed to inform decisions about current and
future programming. Evaluation is distinct from assessment or an informal review of
projects. (Chapter 201)

evaluation plan (Mission-wide)

A plan to identify and track evaluations across the Mission and over the entire CDCS
timeframe. Evaluation plans are a required part of the PMP. (Chapter 201)

evaluation registry
An annex to the annual PPR which includes information, normally drawn from the
evaluation plan in the PMP, on completed evaluations during the previous fiscal year;
and ongoing and planned evaluations for the current fiscal year, plus two out years.
(Chapter 201)

evidence
Body of facts or information that serve as the basis for programmatic and strategic
decision making in the Program Cycle. Evidence can be derived from assessments,
analyses, performance monitoring, and evaluations. It can be sourced from within

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 145

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
USAID or externally and should result from systematic and analytic methodologies or
from observations that are shared and analyzed. (Chapter 201)

expenditures (also called accrued expenditures)

Estimates of the total costs incurred by the Agency for goods and services and other
performance received under an activity, whether paid for or not. Accruals +
disbursements = expenditures. Expenditures offer a valuable indicator of progress in
monetary terms of an activity or project. (Chapter 201)

experimental design (of an evaluation)

An impact evaluation design in which random assignment is used to assign the
intervention among members of the eligible population to eliminate selection bias, so
there are those who receive the intervention (treatment group) and those who do not
(control group). Also called Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). (Chapter 201)

external evaluation
An evaluation that meets both of these criteria: 1) is commissioned by USAID or others,
rather than by the implementing partner responsible for the activities being evaluated;
and 2) has a team leader who is an independent expert from outside the Agency with no
fiduciary relationship with the implementing partner. External evaluations may include
USAID staff members, but not as team leader. (Chapter 201)

focus
The operational principle that USAID should focus U.S. Government resources in a
manner that is likely to yield the strongest development impact. This could be
accomplished by concentrating Mission efforts in a specific geographic area, on a
specific targeted population, or through a particular sectoral approach. Given that other
actors often provide assistance, it is critical that USAID proactively engage other
development actors and determine USAID’s comparative advantage. (Chapter 201)

Foreign Assistance Framework Standardized Program Structure and Definitions

A listing of program categories that provides common definitions for the use of foreign
assistance funds. The definitions identify very specifically and directly what USAID is
doing, not why it is doing it. It is most relevant for budget planning and tracking (see
program area, program element, and program sub-element). (Chapter 201)

gender
A social construct that refers to relations between and among the sexes based on their
relative roles. It encompasses the economic, political, and socio-cultural attributes,
constraints, and opportunities associated with being male or female. As a social
construct, gender varies across cultures, is dynamic, and is open to change over time.
Because of the variation in gender across cultures and over time, gender roles should
not be assumed but investigated. Note that gender is not interchangeable with women
or sex. (Chapter 201)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 146

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
gender analysis (see ADS 205)

gender integration
Identifying and then addressing gender inequalities during strategic planning, project
design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Since the roles and relations of
power between men and women affect how a project or activity is implemented, it is
essential that USAID staff address these issues on an ongoing basis. USAID uses the
term gender integration in planning and programming. (Chapter 201)

gender-sensitive indicator
Indicators that point out to what extent and in what ways development programs and
projects achieved results related to gender equality and whether/how reducing gaps
between males/females and empowering women leads to better project/development
outcomes. (Chapter 201)

Goal (See CDCS Goal)

Government Agreement Technical Representative (GATR)

Designated by the Mission Director, represents the USAID Mission for all matters
related to a Government-to-Government (G2G) agreement. The GATR, like an AOR or
COR for A&A awards, has a formal designation letter or memorandum from the Mission
Director defining his/her roles, responsibilities, and authorities. (Chapter 201)

host country
The country in which a USAID-funded activity takes place. (Chapter 201, 252, 253,
301, 305, 322, 495)

impact evaluation
Evaluation based on models of cause and effect and that requires a credible and
rigorously defined counterfactual to control for factors other than the intervention that
might account for the observed change. Impact evaluations in which comparisons are
made between beneficiaries that are randomly assigned to either a treatment or a
control group provide the strongest evidence of a relationship between the intervention
under study and the outcome measured. Impact evaluations measure the change in a
development outcome that is attributable to a defined intervention. (Chapter 201)

Implementation Letter
Formal correspondence between USAID and another party following a formal
agreement that obligates funding. Implementation letters serve several functions,
including providing more detailed implementation procedures, providing details on terms
of an agreement, recording the completion of conditions precedent to disbursements,
and approving funding commitments and mutually agreed-upon modifications to
program descriptions. (Chapter 201)

implementing mechanism

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 147

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
A means of implementing a project to achieve identified results, generally through the
use of a legally binding relationship established between an executing agency
(generally a U.S. Government agency like USAID or a host government agency) and an
implementing entity (contractor, grantee, host government entity, public international
organization, etc.) to carry out programs with U.S. Government funding. Examples of
implementing mechanisms include contracts, cooperative agreements, grants,
interagency agreements, bilateral project agreements, fixed amount reimbursement and
performance agreements and cash transfers to host country governments, public-
private partnerships, Development Credit Authority (DCA) agreements, and
Development Innovation Venture (DIV) awards. (Chapter 201)

implementing partner
The executing agency (generally a U.S. Government agency like USAID or a host
government agency) or the implementing entity (contractor, grantee, host government
entity, public international organization) that carries out programs with U.S. Government
funding through a legally binding award or agreement. (Chapter 201)

indicator
An indicator is a quantifiable measure of a characteristic or condition of people,
institutions, systems, or processes that may change over time. (Chapter 201)

Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)

The preliminary review of the reasonably foreseeable effects of a proposed action on
the environment. Its function is to provide a brief statement of the factual basis for a
threshold decision as to whether an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental
Impact Statement will be required (see ADS 204). (Chapter 201)

input
A resource, such as technical assistance, commodities, training, or provision of USAID
staff, either operating expenses (OE) or program-funded, that is used to create an
output. (Chapter 201)

instrument
A contract, cooperative agreement, Development Credit Authority (DCA) partial credit
guarantee, bilateral agreement, or other legally binding mechanism that obligates or
sub-obligates program or operating expenses (OE) funds. (Chapter 201)

Integrated Country Strategy (ICS)

A process through which all U.S. Government Missions develop multi-year strategies
with a whole-of-government focus. As directed by the Presidential Policy Directive on
Security Sector Assistance, the ICS also represents the official U.S. Government
strategy for all Security Sector Assistance in its respective countries. Additionally, and in
line with the whole-of-government scope of each ICS, each USAID Mission’s Country
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) is nested within the ICS. Objectives from

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 148

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
each ICS are used to frame the State and USAID foreign assistance request in the
Congressional Budget Justification. (Chapter 201)

Intermediate Result (IR)

A component of a Results Framework in a Mission CDCS. An important result that is
seen as an essential contribution to advancing a Development Objective (DO). IRs are
measurable results that may capture a number of discrete and more specific lower-level
results and typically define the purpose of projects. (Chapter 201)

internal evaluation
An evaluation that is either: 1) commissioned by USAID in which the evaluation team
leader is USAID staff (a USAID internal evaluation); or 2) conducted or commissioned
by an implementing partner—or consortium of implementing partner and evaluator—
concerning their own activity (an implementer internal evaluation). (Chapter 201)

Joint Regional Strategy (JRS)

The JRS is a three-year strategy developed collaboratively by State and USAID regional
bureaus to identify the priorities, goals, and areas of strategic focus within a region. The
JRS aims to provide a forward-looking and flexible framework within which bureaus and
Missions can prioritize engagement and resources and respond to unanticipated events.
The JRS process will be co-led by the State and USAID regional bureaus, with
participation and input from relevant functional bureau stakeholders. Missions will be
involved in JRS development, as the JRS will set the general parameters to guide
Mission planning. Bureaus will develop the JRS in the fall, in advance of the Mission
and bureau budget-build process, so that it can serve as the foundation and framework
for resource planning and for the analysis and review of the annual Mission and bureau
budget requests. Bureaus will complete a JRS once every three years, with the ability to
adjust it in interim years as circumstances necessitate. (Chapter 201)

leverage
Significant resources mobilized from non-U.S. Government sources. USAID seeks the
mobilization of resources of other actors on a 1:2 or greater basis (i.e., 50 percent of the
proposed value of the award). Leveraged resources may include grants/awards from
non-U.S. Government organizations and other donor governments. (Chapters 201,
303, 623)

local ownership
The commitment and ability of local actors ― including the governments, civil society,
the private sector, universities, individual citizens, and others ― to prioritize, resource,
and implement development, so that development outcomes have a greater potential to
be sustained and generate lasting change without USAID assistance. (Chapter 201)

local system

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 149

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Interconnected sets of actors—governments, civil society, the private sector,
universities, individual citizens, and others—that jointly produce a particular outcome.
(Chapter 201)

locally established partner (LEP)

A U.S. or international organization that works through locally-led operations and
programming models. LEPs:

● Have maintained continuous operations in-country for at least five years and
materially demonstrate a long-term presence in a country through adherence or
alignment to the following:

- Local staff should comprise at least 50% of office personnel,

- Maintenance of a dedicated local office,
- Registration with the appropriate local authorities,
- A local bank account, and
- A portfolio of locally-implemented programs.

● Have demonstrated links to the local community, including:

- If the organization has a governing body or board of directors, then it must

include a majority of local citizens;
- A letter of support from a local organization to attest to its work; and
- Other criteria that an organization proposes to demonstrate its local roots.

(Chapters 201 and 303)

logic model
A graphic or visual depiction of a theory of change, illustrating the connection between
what the project will do and what it hopes to achieve. There are a wide range of logic
models, including but not limited to LogFrames, causal loop diagrams, stakeholder-
based models, and Results Frameworks. (Chapter 201)

logical framework (LogFrame)

A type of logic model presented in a table format that provides a simplified depiction of
how a project is to function in the form of a linear chain of cause and effect. It
establishes the “if-then” (causal) relationships between the elements of a project: if the
outputs are achieved (and the assumptions hold true), then certain outcomes (or sub-
purposes) can be expected; if the outcomes are achieved (and the assumptions hold
true), then the purpose can be expected. (Chapter 201)

mechanism (see implementing mechanism)

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 150

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
A document that sets forth a set of intentions between participants. MOUs are generally
designed as non-binding instruments and establish political (not legal) commitments.
(Chapter 201)

Mission Resource Request (MRR) (previously MSRP)

A country-specific document prepared by a field Operating Unit (OU) under the
guidance of the Ambassador, which will focus on resources required to implement the
strategies outlined in Bureau and country-level multi-year strategies and will not
duplicate the strategy components previously included in the MSRP. (Chapter 201)

monitoring (in the Program Cycle)

Monitoring is the ongoing and systematic tracking of data or information relevant to
USAID strategies, projects, and activities. Relevant data and informational needs are
identified during planning and design, and may include output and outcome measures
that are directly attributable to or affected by USAID interventions, as well as measures
of the operating context and programmatic assumptions. (Chapter 201)

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Plan

A plan for monitoring, evaluating, and learning from a USAID activity (Activity MEL Plan)
or Project (Project MEL Plan). They are distinct from Mission-wide Performance
Management Plans (PMP). (Chapter 201)

mortgage
A claim on future resources (which have been authorized in the joint Operating Unit’s
(OUs) approved Operational Plan(OP)); the difference between the total authorized
level of funding and the cumulative total amount of funds obligated to a particular
activity (see ADS 602). (Chapter 201)

National Security Strategy (NSS)

An overarching U.S. Government policy document that covers the national security
principles underlying U.S. foreign policy. As published in May 2010, its main themes
include promoting the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and
partners; a strong and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system
that promotes opportunity and prosperity; respect for universal values at home and
around the world; and an international order advanced by U.S. leadership. Objectives of
development assistance are central to the document, which was prepared by the
National Security Council. (Chapter 201)

Non-Permissive Environment (NPE)

A "non-permissive" environment refers to an environment or context (at the national
and/or sub-national level) characterized by uncertainty, instability, inaccessibility and/or
insecurity, and in which USAID's ability to safely and effectively operate is constrained.
Factors that may contribute to a "non-permissive" environment include:

● Armed conflict to which the U.S. is a party or not a party;

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 151

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
● Limited physical access due to distance, disaster, geography, or non-presence;
● Restricted political space due to repression of political activity and expression;
and/or
● Uncontrolled criminality, including corruption. (Chapter 201)

non-required evaluation
An evaluation whose completion does not fulfill an evaluation requirement. Missions
may conduct non-required evaluations for learning or management purposes, at any
point in implementation of activities, projects, or programs. As evaluations, they still
must meet all procedural, reporting, and quality standards stipulated in ADS Chapter
201. Non-required evaluations may be impact or performance, internal, or external.
(Chapter 201)

operating expense (OE)

Costs related to personnel, other administration costs, rental, and depreciation of fixed
assets. (Chapter 201)

Operating Unit (OU)

The organizational unit responsible for implementing a foreign assistance program for
one or more elements of the Department of State’s Foreign Assistance Framework. The
definition includes all U.S. Government agencies implementing any funding from the
relevant foreign assistance accounts (the 150 accounts). For USAID, it includes field
Missions and regional entities, as well as regional bureaus, pillar bureaus, and
independent offices in USAID/Washington that expend program funds to achieve DOs
identified in a CDCS. In Chapter 201, field OUs are referred to as “Missions”, and those
in Washington are referred to as “Washington OUs.” (Chapter 201)

Operational Plan (OP)

Provides details on the use of foreign assistance funding for a specific fiscal year. It
identifies where, and on what, programs funds will be spent, which U.S. Government
agencies will manage the funds, and who will implement the programs. A primary
objective of the OP is to ensure coordinated, efficient, and effective use of all U.S.
Government foreign assistance resources in support of foreign policy priorities.
(Chapter 201)

operations policy
Program procedures, rules, and regulations affecting the management of USAID
internal systems, including budget, financial management, personnel, procurement, and
program operations. (Chapter 201)

outcome
The conditions of people, systems, or institutions that indicate progress or lack of
progress toward achievement of project/program goals. Outcomes are any result higher
than an output to which a given output contributes but for which it is not solely

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 152

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
responsible. Outcomes may be intermediate or end outcomes, short-term or long-term,
intended or unintended, positive or negative, direct or indirect. (Chapter 201)

output
Outputs are what are produced as a direct result of inputs. They are the tangible,
immediate, and intended products or consequences of an activity within USAID’s control
or influence. (Chapter 201)

partner
An organization or individual with which/whom the Agency collaborates to achieve
mutually agreed-upon objectives and secure participation of ultimate customers.
Partners can include host country governments, private voluntary organizations, host
country and international NGOs, universities, other U.S. Government agencies, United
Nations and other multilateral organizations, professional and business associations,
and private businesses and individuals. (Chapter 201)

partner country
The country in which a USAID-funded activity takes place (see host country). (Chapter
201)

pause and reflect

A component of learning and adaptive management, the act of taking time to think
critically about ongoing activities and processes and to plan for the best way forward.
(Chapter 201)

performance evaluation (See evaluation, impact evaluation)

Performance evaluations encompass a broad range of evaluation methods. They often
incorporate before-after comparisons but generally lack a rigorously defined
counterfactual. Performance evaluations may focus on what a particular project or
program has achieved (at any point during or after implementation); how it was
implemented; how it was perceived and valued; and other questions that are pertinent
to design, management, and operational decision making. (Chapter 201)

performance indicator
Means to monitor expected outputs and outcomes of strategies, projects, or activities
based on a Mission’s Results Framework or a project’s or activity’s logic model.
Performance indicators are the basis for observing progress and measuring actual
results compared to expected results. Performance indicators help answer the extent to
which a Mission or Washington OU is progressing toward its objective(s), but alone
cannot tell a Mission or Washington OU why such progress is or is not being made.
(Chapter 201)

performance management
The systematic process of planning, collecting, analyzing, and using performance
monitoring data and evaluations to track progress, influence decision making, and

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 153

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
improve results. Performance management activities are described at the Mission level
in the Mission's Performance Management Plan (PMP). Performance management is
one aspect of the larger process of continuous learning and adaptive management.
(Chapter 201)

Performance Management Plan (PMP)

A tool to plan and manage the process of monitoring strategic progress, project
performance, programmatic assumptions and operational context; evaluating
performance and impact; and learning from evidence in order to inform decision-
making, resource allocation, and adaptation at the strategy level. PMPs are Mission
documents and are distinct from Project MEL Plans and Activity MEL Plans. (Chapter
201)

performance monitoring
Performance monitoring is the ongoing and systematic collection of performance
indicator data and other quantitative or qualitative information to reveal whether
implementation is on track and whether expected results are being achieved.
Performance monitoring includes monitoring the quantity, quality, and timeliness of
activity outputs within the control of USAID or its implementers, as well as the
monitoring of project and strategic outcomes that are expected to result from the
combination of these outputs and other factors. Performance monitoring continues
throughout strategies, projects, and activities. (Chapter 201)

Performance Plan and Report (PPR)

Documents U.S. Government foreign assistance results achieved over the past fiscal
year and sets targets on designated performance indicators for the next two fiscal
years. (Chapter 201)

pillar bureau
A Washington OU that provides leadership and innovation in its respective field. The
four Pillar Bureaus are Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3);
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA); Food Security; and Global
Health (GH). Pillar bureaus concentrate on program activities that support USAID
Operating Units (OU) in the field (see ADS 200). (Chapter 201)

pipeline
The difference between the total amount that has been obligated in an award or
agreement and the total expenditures against that award or agreement. (Chapter 201)

Planner
The designated person responsible for developing and maintaining a written Individual
Acquisition Plan (IAP) or for the planning function in those acquisitions (FAR 7.101) or
assistance actions not requiring a written plan. The Planner may be the Project Design
Team Leader or Project Manager or his or her designee, such as the intended
Contracting Officer/Agreement Officer Representative (COR/AOR), who will work with

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 154

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
the CO/AO in carrying out the planning function. Operating Units (OUs) must ensure
that a Planner is identified for a particular procurement. Although OUs have the
discretion to determine the appropriate individual based on the organizational structure
and functions of the unit, the Planner must be an individual with sufficient authority in
the OU to ensure that planning complies with this chapter, FAR acquisition planning
requirements, and OMB/OFPP Policy Letter 11-01 (see ADS 300). (Chapter 201)

politically sensitive country

Generally defined as a country in which the internationally-recognized government:

● Is politically repressive; and

● Has explicitly rejected USAID assistance, or has such an adverse relationship

with the United States that the Agency cannot partner or cooperate with the
government on development assistance. (Chapter 201)

portfolio review
A periodic review of designated aspects of a USAID Mission or Washington OU’s
strategy, projects, or activities, respectively. (Chapter 201)

program
Within the context of the Program Cycle, “program” usually refers to either a Mission's
entire portfolio, or to an entire technical sector portfolio, under a CDCS. For Washington
Operating Units and other operating units that do not have a CDCS, program generally
refers to a set of projects or activities that support a higher-level objective or goal.
(Chapter 201)

program area
One of the several categories in the Foreign Assistance Standardized Program
Structure that identify broad programmatic interventions (such as Counter Narcotics,
Health, or Private Sector Competitiveness). This is primarily used for budget planning
and tracking. Program Areas can be funded by more than one appropriation account.
(Chapter 201)

Program Assistance
A generalized resource transfer, in the form of foreign exchange or commodities, to the
recipient government based on meeting defined benchmarks or performance indicators
that are not based on cost. This is in contrast to other types of assistance in which
USAID finances specific inputs, such as technical assistance, training, equipment,
vehicles, or capital construction. Program Assistance has also historically been known
as Non-Project Assistance. (Chapter 201)

Program Cycle
The Program Cycle is USAID’s operational model for planning, delivering, assessing,
and adapting development programming in a given region or country to advance U.S.

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 155

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
foreign policy. It encompasses guidance and procedures for: 1) making strategic
decisions at the regional or country level about programmatic areas of focus and
associated resources; 2) designing projects and activities to implement strategic plans;
and 3) learning from performance monitoring, evaluations, and other relevant sources of
information to make course corrections and inform future programming, as needed.
(Chapter 201)

program element
Categories in the Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure that reflect the
different components of a program area. Examples would be Alternative Development
and Alternative Livelihoods within Counter Narcotics, HIV/AIDS within Health, and
Business Enabling Environment within Private Sector Competitiveness. This is primarily
used for budget planning and tracking. (Chapter 201)

program sub-element
Program sub-elements are categories in the Foreign Assistance Standardized Program
Structure that reflect the different components of a program element. An example would
be Farmer/Community Group Support within Alternative Development and Alternative
Livelihoods, Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission within HIV/AIDS, or Property
Rights within Business Enabling Environment. This is primarily used for budget planning
and tracking. (Chapter 201)

project
A set of complementary activities, over an established timeline and budget, intended to
achieve a discrete development result, often aligned with an Intermediate Result (IR) in
the CDCS Results Framework. Taken together, a Mission’s suite of project designs
provides the operational plans for achieving the objectives in its CDCS or other
applicable strategic plan. (Chapter 201)

Project Appraisal Document (PAD)

Documents the complete project design and serves as the reference document for
project approval and subsequent implementation. The PAD should: define the highest
level purpose to be achieved by the project; present the theory of change regarding how
the process of change is expected to take place and how USAID intends to influence
these changes; describe an overall project management and implementation plan,
including a brief description of the family of activities that will execute the project design;
and present a financial plan and MEL plan. The PAD should be developed based on an
understanding of the project context, an assessment of the development problem, and a
review of evaluations and other mandatory and non-mandatory analyses. (Chapter 201)

Project Appraisal Document (PAD) Approval Memorandum

The PAD Approval Memorandum gives substantive approval for a project to move from
the planning stage to implementation. It does not reserve or commit funds. The
authorization approves the project design, sets out the basic scope of the design and its

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 156

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
duration, defines the family of activities that will implement the project, and approves an
overall total budget level for the project. (Chapter 201)

Project Design Plan (PDP)

A 5- to 10-page memorandum that defines the preliminary Project Purpose of the
proposed project and proposes a road map of the analytic and other steps needed to
complete the PAD. (Chapter 201)

Project Manager
Member of a Development Objective (DO) Team or Mission technical office who
provides overall guidance and direction at the project level. This is typically a function in
the Mission and not a formal supervisory position. (Chapter 201)

Project Purpose
The highest-level result to be achieved by a project. The Project Purpose must support
the Mission’s CDCS Results Framework, typically at the Intermediate Result (IR) level,
and be defined at a level of ambition that is manageable and judged to be attainable
given the Mission’s resources, staff, and influence. (Chapter 201)

Public Financial Management Risk Assessment Framework (PFMRAF)

USAID’s risk management process to identify, mitigate, and manage the fiduciary risks
encountered when considering Government to Government (G2G) assistance. It
focuses on fiduciary risks to which U.S. Government funds may be exposed when
administered directly by the Public Financial Management (PFM) systems of the
individual entities intended to implement G2G-funded activities. PFM assessments of
individual entities must include all systems that may be used in implementing an
individual project (see ADS 220). (Chapter 201)

quasi-experimental design (of an evaluation)

Impact evaluation designs used to attribute impact in the absence of a control group
from an experimental design. Rather than a randomized control group, a comparison
group is generated through rigorous statistical procedures such as propensity score
matching, regression discontinuity, or analysis with instrumental variables. (Chapter
201)

Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RDCS)

A strategy similar to a CDCS for a regional platform or program. (Chapter 201)

required evaluation
An evaluation whose completion fulfills a requirement. Required evaluations must be
external and managed, in most cases, by Program Office staff. (Chapter 201)

result
A significant and intended change in a development condition affecting people,
systems, or institutions. Results are outputs and outcomes, including the Development

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 157

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision
Objective (DOs), Intermediate Result (IRs), sub-Intermediate Result (sub-IRs), Project
Purpose, and project outcomes, as specified in a Mission’s CDCS or project logic
model. (Chapter 201)

Results Framework
The predominant logic model for representing the development hypotheses underlying
the Mission’s strategy. The Results Framework diagrams the development hypotheses,
outlining the logic for achieving DOs over time, including causal logic (at levels up to
IRs) and contribution between IRs and DOs and between DOs and Goals. The Results
Framework includes the CDCS Goal, DOs, IRs, and sub-IRs. (Chapter 201)

risk
Within the Program Cycle, risks are factors in the programmatic context that could have
negative consequences to the achievement of results. Mission and Washington OUs
use this information to make management decisions and inform management actions
about implementation of programming. (Chapter 201)

self-reliance
The capacity to plan, finance, and implement solutions to local development challenges,
as well as the commitment to see these through effectively, inclusively, and with
accountability. (Chapter 201)

sex
A biological construct that defines males and females according to physical
characteristics and reproductive capabilities. For monitoring and reporting purposes,
USAID disaggregates data by sex, not by gender. Gender and sex are not synonyms
(see gender). (Chapter 201)

stakeholders
Those who are affected positively or negatively by a development outcome or have an
interest in or can influence a development outcome. (Chapter 201)

stocktaking
A structured review and assessment of ongoing efforts and options going forward; for
example, a mid-course CDCS stocktaking exercise. (Chapter 201)

strategic planning
The process by which USAID defines its objectives for development in a country or
region and maximizes the impact of development cooperation (including, as
appropriate, cooperation with partner governments, partner country/regional
stakeholders, other donors, and the interagency). USAID strategic planning advances
overall U.S. Government efforts to ensure the strategic use of resources. (Chapter 201)

sub-Intermediate Result (sub-IR)

Results necessary for achieving an IR. (Chapter 201)

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 158

 03/10/2020 Partial
Revision

Support Objective
A Support Objective reflects the technical and management assistance that the regional
platform/Mission may provide to bilateral Missions and to non-presence programs within
its region. Regional platforms/Missions may include a Support Objective for services
provision, if appropriate. A Support Objective can also be managed by a bilateral
Mission or a Washington-based Operating Unit (OU). (Chapter 201)

sustainability
The ability of a local system to produce desired outcomes over time. Programs
contribute to sustainability when they strengthen the system’s ability to produce valued
results and to be both resilient and adaptive in the face of changing circumstances.
(Chapter 201)

target
Specific, planned level of result to be achieved within a specific timeframe with a given
level of resource. (Chapter 201)

theory of change
A narrative description, usually accompanied by a graphic or visual depiction, of how
and why a purpose or result is expected to be achieved in a particular context.

transition planning
A legislatively mandated section of the CDCS to determine the proposed trajectory for
USAID assistance in country, including identifying the conditions under which USAID
assistance will no longer be needed, benchmarks toward achievement of those
conditions, and options for transition once those conditions are met. (Chapter 201)

unliquidated obligation
The difference between the total amount that has been obligated in an award or
agreement and the total disbursement against that award or agreement. (Chapter 201)

201_031020

Text highlighted in yellow indicates that the material is new or substantively revised.

ADS Chapter 201 159