1. Alemitu Golda - CETH Pranati Mohanraj - CARE USA
Aligning global Indicators with project indicators CARE Ethiopia experience MEL CoP session
Alemitu Golda - CETH
Pranati Mohanraj - CARE USA

2. CARE Eth experience - Process
From July 2016 onwards, individual projects including at least two global indicators during design
All the existing projects included at least two global indicators in their midterm and end line survey ToRs & reports
PQL participate in some of project designs, reviews and reflects on alignment of relevant global indicators during new project design and periodic studies
However, FY17 PIIRS data for Eth revealed gaps in accumulating sectorial evidences with respect to CI indicators
To further strengthen the alignment of the global indicators, CO has put more emphasis on design and studies periods -
CO has been using contextualized version of CI TOR for assessments/evaluations

3. CARE Eth experience - Process
Based on findings from ‘’Good enough’’ learning agenda pilot, CO standardized sectorial specific indicators at different levels, e.g.
Food security, Resilience
International consultant reviewed current MEL practices and indicators alignment
Provided recommendations that lead to generating quality and valid program evidences towards reporting to the CI indicators
Implementation of the MEL consultancy recommendations is underway
Emphasizes on need for a visualized hierarchical alignment of indicators as CET Programs (CFIRW, PSAG, RPUFY)=>CI=> Projects outcome indicators. The implementation is underway

4. CARE Global indicators and project indicators alignment patters – FNS&CCR
GROW
DFSA
Project
GRAD /LRA
Global Indicators
13. Prevalence of population with moderate or severe food insecurity, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)
14. Prevalence of stunting among children under five years of age
15. % of people better able to build resilience to the effects of climate change and variability
% of people better able to build resilience to the effects of climate change and variability in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
% of women and girls better able to build resilience to the effects of climate change and variability in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
% of men and boys better able to build resilience to the effects of climate change and variability in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
% of women, girls, men and boys with moderate or severe food insecurity in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
% with moderate or severe food insecurity in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
# girls and boys under 5 in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
# girls under 5 in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
# boys under 5 in the population on which CARE seeks to impact
Specific Info. for Global indicator
Project Indicators
Prevalence of population with moderate or severe food insecurity, based on the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES)
Improved nutrition sensitive practices for WRA and boys and girls under 5
% increase in equitable access to nutritious foods for WRA and boys and girls under 5
Improved climate-resilient livelihoods for vulnerable women, men, and youth
How to measure
Baseline (HH, FGD) regular MEL & endline studies
Baseline (GCVCA,HH), applied research-IFPRI, regular MEL & endline studies
Baseline, regular MEL & endline studies (HH, FGD, Rolling profile)

5. Challenges
Use of donor specific indicators and approaches by projects demanded much time to align
CI shared the global indicator document with out any orientation to experts. Thus, much time was spent on reading and referencing
There is persisting gaps in understanding the methods of generating evidences for the indicators and fully aligning to global indicators
Limited budget is challenging for organizing necessary discussion platforms across projects and field offices

6. Lessons learned
For new projects we should have simultaneously tested and verified compatibility of the global and project indicators rather than focusing on inclusion of indicators
The indicator inclusion/alignment assignment should have been resourced rather than just rolling out the list of indicators from CI to COs