Functional Series 200 INTERIM UPDATE #18

**Program Assistance**

**SUBJECT: R4 2003 Guidance**

**NEW MATERIAL: This notice provides the R4 guidance for the FY 2003 R4
cycle.**

**EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/22/2000**

**USAID/General Notice**

**POLICY PPC/PC**

**12/22/2000**

**Subject: R4 2003 Guidance**

This notice provides the R4 guidance for the FY 2003 R4 cycle. This year
the R4 guidance is being issued as an attachment to this notice, as an
e-mail attachment, as a link on the USAID intranet, and as a cable.

USAID has sought to make as few changes as possible in the format for
the FY 2003 R4. This year\'s guidance, however, does include certain
adjustments needed to harmonize the R4 with progress made over the past
year in the Agency\'s ongoing reform process, as well as with changes in
the form and content of other Agency reporting documents. This year\'s
guidance, for example, reflects the issuance of the new ADS 200 Series,
as well as our ongoing effort to harmonize the format of the R4 with the
Budget Justification (formerly known as the Congressional Presentation).

Perhaps most importantly, this year\'s guidance reflects revisions in
the Agency Strategic Plan (ASP) governing how USAID will meet the
reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA).

Attached: FY 2003 Results Review and Resource Request \[R4\] Guidance

Point of Contact: Any questions concerning this Notice may be directed
to Parrie Henderson-O\'Keefe, PPC/PC, 202-712-5672.

Notice 1250

FY 2003 Results Review and Resource Request \[R4\] Guidance

December 22, 2000

This notice provides R4 guidance for the FY 2003 R4 cycle. This guidance
contains certain limited changes from last year as noted in section I.A.
below. The following table of contents is provided to facilitate use of
this guidance:

Section:

I. General Instructions [2](#__RefHeading___Toc501944069)

A. Changes for This Year [2](#__RefHeading___Toc501944070)

B. Budget Outlook [4](#__RefHeading___Toc501944071)

C. Mission Performance Plan (MPP) Linkage
[5](#__RefHeading___Toc501944072)

D. Changes to the Management Agreement [5](#__RefHeading___Toc501944073)

E. Who Should Submit [7](#__RefHeading___Toc501944074)

F. Electronic Format and Performance Data Tables
[7](#__RefHeading___Toc501944075)

G. Submission, Schedule and Contact Points
[8](#__RefHeading___Toc501944076)

H. Supplemental References [9](#__RefHeading___Toc501944077)

II\. R4 outline and drafting instructions
[9](#__RefHeading___Toc501944078)

A. Cover Memo: [9](#__RefHeading___Toc501944079)

B. R4 Part I: Overview and Factors Affecting Program Performance
[10](#__RefHeading___Toc501944080)

C. R4 Part II: Results Review By SO: [10](#__RefHeading___Toc501944081)

D. R4 Part III: Resource Request: [13](#__RefHeading___Toc501944082)

E. Program, OE, USDH, Workforce, FSN Separation & Trust Fund, and
Controller.
[14](#e.-program-oe-usdh-workforce-fsn-separation-trust-fund-and-controller.)

F. Special Reporting Situations [15](#__RefHeading___Toc501944084)

G. Supplemental Information Annexes [16](#__RefHeading___Toc501944085)

III\. Bureau specific guidance [20](#__RefHeading___Toc501944086)

A. Africa Bureau Supplemental Guidance
[20](#__RefHeading___Toc501944087)

B. Asia Near East Bureau Supplemental Guidance
[21](#__RefHeading___Toc501944088)

C. Europe Eurasia Bureau Supplemental Guidance
[22](#__RefHeading___Toc501944089)

D. Latin America And Caribbean Bureau Supplemental Guidance
[23](#__RefHeading___Toc501944090)

E. G Bureau Supplemental Guidance [23](#__RefHeading___Toc501944091)

F. Bureau for Humanitarian Response (BHR) Supplemental Guidance
[23](#__RefHeading___Toc501944092)

IV\. Washington Review of R4s [23](#__RefHeading___Toc501944093)

# 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944069 .anchor}I. General Instructions

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944070 .anchor}A. Changes for This Year

In keeping with the spirit of the agreements reached on the R4 process
at the October 1998 worldwide Mission Director's Conference, USAID has
sought to make as few changes as possible in the format for the FY 2003
R4. This year's guidance, however, does include certain adjustments
needed to harmonize the R4 with progress made over the past year in the
Agency's ongoing reform process, as well as with changes in the form and
content of other Agency reporting documents. This year's guidance, for
example, reflects the issuance of the new ADS 200 Series, as well as our
ongoing effort to harmonize the format of the R4 with the Budget
Justification (formerly known as the Congressional Presentation).

Perhaps most importantly, this year's guidance reflects revisions in the
Agency Strategic Plan (ASP) governing how USAID will meet the reporting
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The
revised ASP changes the Agency performance goals. *The Agency will now
use progress toward Operating Unit strategic objectives* as the
fundamental measures of Agency performance for purposes of complying
with GPRA. Operating Units are therefore strongly encouraged, whenever
possible, to include at least one Strategic Objective-level performance
indicator for each SO reported in their R4 if results are being achieved
at the SO level (see Section II.C). Another change in the revised ASP is
the identification of five themes that cross-cut the six Agency goals
and the management goal. In our annual Performance Overview (the
combination of the Agency Performance Plan and Agency Performance Report
-- APP/APR), we will report on **one** of these cross-cutting themes in
depth each year. Institutional and organizational development is the
theme on which we will report in the FY 2000 Performance Overview. Thus,
this year's R4 guidance requests Operating Units to submit information
as described in Section II. G.1 below.

This year's guidance also responds to the findings of PPC's annual
assessment of the R4 process. The assessment showed that the bulk of
Agency Operating Units made significant progress in streamlining their
R4s. Operating Units continue to improve the R4 process by keeping the
cost of the R4 in line with management benefits. Sixty-eight percent of
Operating Units submitted R4s early or on time, trebling the results of
last year. More Operating Units also met limits on pages and numbers of
indicators. Operating Units with an overall outstanding response to
limitations in the guidance were Tanzania, West Bank/Gaza, Lithuania,
Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan,
Dominican Republic, and Paraguay. These results were presented to and
discussed with senior staff. Note that the assessment did not attempt to
judge the quality of the information included in the narrative portions
of the R4. PPC has recommended that in the near future the Agency
evaluate the quality, substance and usefulness of the reporting in the
R4. The R4 assessment report is available on the Agency Intranet website
cdie.usaid.gov.

The findings of the assessment highlighted some areas where changes in
the guidance are needed, as well as some areas where compliance with the
guidance needs to be improved. Changes to this year's guidance are based
on the findings in the assessment, the need to comply more fully with
GPRA, discussions of the R4 Working Group, and feedback from Operating
Units.

Key changes to last year's guidance include:

> Language on changing the Management Agreement and its elements has
> been clarified (Section I.D). In particular, note requirements for
> reporting on unliquidated SOs.
>
> In the case of disaggregated indicators, limits on the number of
> indicators that may be reported have been relaxed (Section II.C).
>
> The procedures for the submission and distribution of the R4 have been
> altered (Section I.G).
>
> The guidance makes clear that only in extremely rare instances should
> R4s be classified.
>
> A new R4 application has replaced last year's template and its use is
> strongly encouraged. On request, training on use of the new
> application will be provided to OU representatives in or traveling
> through Washington (Section I.F)
>
> In light of changes to the Agency Strategic Plan and the desire to
> improve the accuracy of SO linkages to Agency objectives, procedures
> for linking SOs to Agency objectives have been changed (Section II.C).
>
> A new annex has been added to capture information on Institutional and
> Organizational Development (Section 11.G.1).
>
> OUs should consult the new ADS 200 series, in particular Chapter 201,
> before making any SO level or Strategic Plan revisions.

Furthermore, the following areas from last year bear increased attention
from OUs:

Supplemental Annexes should continue to be used when additional
reporting on SO performance is needed beyond the prescribed page limits.

> OUs should consult with PPC/PC and with their own Bureaus in the event
> that they receive guidance beyond that included in this R4 guidance
> notice before acting on it. PPC/PC will work with Bureau
> representatives to ensure that the guidance is consistent.
>
> In their resource requests, OUs should discuss ways in which
> performance influenced resource decisions, especially for SOs not
> meeting expectations and repeat poor performers.

Finally, improvements to the Washington side of the process are also
highlighted.

> Within four weeks of review, Operating Units are to be sent a least an
> e-mail acknowledging receipt of "Cover Memo" issues and a time frame
> within which the Operating Unit can expect those issues to be
> addressed.

In accordance with the October 1998 guidance on "Revisions to USAID's
Performance Planning, Monitoring, and Reporting System," and with
Section 203.3.8 of the new ADS 200 Series, this year's guidance requires
Bureaus to continue to carry out a mid-course strategic implementation
review of each country program at least once every three years.
Operating Unit participation in these reviews is strongly encouraged.

Lastly, USAID has developed an Agency wide expanded response to the
Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000 which authorized
additional funding to combat the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic and control
the spread of infectious diseases including tuberculosis. Existing
approved Strategic or Special Objectives may not cover some expanded
activities contemplated by the initiative, or may be approaching the SO
end-date. In such circumstances (e.g., when an Operating Unit wishes to
launch or expand an HIV/AIDS or infectious diseases activity yet has no
Strategic Objective for such an activity), we encourage operating units
to take advantage of new waiver authority, pursuant to ADS 201.3.3.5,
which will be announced in January. This waiver will allow
implementation of the initiative to proceed by temporarily exempting the
Operating Unit from full and open competition and having an SO in place
before programming these funds. However, we do encourage Operating Units
to update their Strategic Plans accordingly, per ADS 201.3.4.17.
Operating Units that are exercising the waiver authority for existing
SOs should say so in their applicable SO narrative.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944071 .anchor}B. Budget Outlook

At this time it is not possible to give an accurate outlook on the FY
2003 budget because of the transition to a new administration. The FY
2003 budget levels will be determined to a great extent by decisions
made on the FY 2002 budget request. In the fall of 2000 the Agency
submitted a current services budget request to OMB, which was formula
driven, based on the FY 2001appropriated levels with a two percent
adjustment for inflation. Final FY 2002 levels will not be established
before the Agency submits a policy budget when the new administration is
in place. We expect that will occur sometime between March and April of
calendar year 2001.

The sharp increases experienced in FY 2001 in the Child Survival and
Disease program fund account, especially for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis,
can be expected to be maintained in FY 2003. The new administration will
determine the level of support for population and environment programs.
Support for programs in microenterprise, agriculture, and basic
education is likely to be continued. We expect that DA funding for other
economic growth and democracy/governance activities will continue to be
scarce and very competitive. Budget levels for PL 480 Title II food aid
and for disaster assistance and transition initiatives are expected to
remain at recent levels.

At this time we are unable to provide budget guidance for ESF or
programs funded for Eastern Europe and the Freedom Support Act
countries. Additional guidance on overall budget levels and constraints
for these accounts will be sent separately.

We can expect the Congress to continue to provide an array of earmarks
and directives over our budget. Missions and central offices should
include funding for these, based on the appropriations bills of the past
two years, in their budget requests. The new administration\'s
priorities should be known early next year in time for the FY 2002
policy budget submission to the new Congress. DP offices will be
responsible for coordinating earmarks and directives for their missions
and offices.

Performance will continue to be an important factor justifying budget
levels. Other factors are U.S. foreign policy interests, host country
need, host country commitment, and mission pipeline. Therefore, when
preparing the resource request section of your R4, you should specify
how these factors, particularly performance, informed your resource
request.

You need to be aware of the various constraints and how they will affect
your program. Operating expenses and staffing will undoubtedly continue
to be seriously constrained in FY 2003. Salary increases, IT
investments, and security requirements will be difficult to meet without
offsetting savings. You should look for innovative ways to cut costs in
these areas. Funding requests must be presented in the context of the
constraints outlined above and include corresponding OE and workforce
requirements. Further, you should be fully prepared to explain the
effect on your program of reduced program or OE funding or of the lack
of flexibility in sectors besides economic growth and democracy.

We will send you additional guidance on resource request scenarios for
program, OE, and workforce as soon as it is available from the new
administration.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944072 .anchor}C. Mission Performance Plan
(MPP) Linkage

R4 documents must identify which MPP goals and national interests are
supported by each USAID Strategic Objective, and confirm that these
linkages are consistent with MPPs (see section II.B below). Use the MPP
goals in the US Strategic Plan for International Affairs (IASP)
(provided in the new R4 Template). MPP guidance requires that each USAID
objective be described under one primary MPP goal (support to secondary
goals can be indicated). In some cases a choice will have to be made in
determining which IASP goal is primary. USAID education SOs may have to
be somewhat arbitrarily linked to one Primary MPP goal even though they
may benefit more than one. Field Operating Units are encouraged to
pursue increased coordination with the State Department in order to
report USAID results in the MPP.

PPC/PC is the principal contact point with State/RPP on MPP/R4
coordination and will assist in addressing questions related to guidance
that may arise. The Regional Bureaus will have the lead in coordinating
R4 reviews, including with their State counterparts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944073 .anchor}D. Changes to the Management
Agreement

In general, Operating Units responsible for executing strategic plans
have authority to approve minor changes or refinements in a SO.
Significant changes, however, require broad formal approval (see number
4 below). If in doubt, Operating Units are advised to consult with their
Bureau Program Office. Minor changes should be explicitly noted in the
R4 cover memo without requesting formal approval. Significant changes
must be requested in the R4 cover memo (referencing the supporting
information required) and approved by a management agreement cable.

Guidance on what types of changes to the management agreement require
Washington rather than field level approval is summarized below, but can
be found in the following ADS chapters: 201.3.4.9, 201.3.4.10.b,
201.3.4.16, 201.3.4.17, and 203.3.6.4.

1\. The R4 reports on performance under the Strategy in effect during
the last performance cycle. Changes to be reported in the R4 apply only
to changes under that Strategy, not the changes resulting from a
Strategy approved since the last R4 report. Therefore, an Operating Unit
need not attempt to report as "changes" SOs, IRs or indicators that are
part of a new Strategy. On the other hand, as long as an Operating Unit
is continuing to obligate resources toward, or expend resources in
pursuit of, an Objective, that OU needs to continue to report on its
progress toward the expected results of that SO. This means that if the
OU has a new SO similar, but not necessarily identical, to an old SO,
the OU should continue to report in the R4 the old SO \-- both results
and expenditures \-- until fully liquidated. In this circumstance, there
are two distinct sets of expected results, and two distinct sets of
funding parameters.

[Special Exception for Funds Notified and Obligated Below the SO
Level]{.underline}: In certain cases, funds for a particular contract,
grant, or other activity have been notified to the Congress and
obligated below the SO level. In these cases, it is possible to
re-orient such ongoing contracts, grants, or other activities to a new,
successor SO without deobligating and re-obligating the funds committed
to these instruments. This re-orientation may leave the expiring, old SO
that once hosted these instruments with no residual funding. In such
cases, the expiring SO should be considered to have been completed, and
Operating Units should prepare a Strategic Objective Close-Out Report as
described in ADS 203.3.7 and attach that SO Close-Out Report as a
special annex to the R4. Operating Units should also submit in the body
of the R4 a final narrative and a last set of Performance Data Tables
for such expiring SOs.

2\. Extension of SO End Dates: Per ADS 201.3.4.9, Bureau approval to
extend SO end dates is required when the extension is needed to
accommodate additional Fiscal Years of obligations beyond the originally
approved strategic plan funding period. Operating Units, however, may
extend SO end dates without prior Bureau approval when:

-   No new obligations are needed; or

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   New obligations are needed, but the sum total of additional
    obligations does not exceed 10 percent of the total life of SO
    amount previously agreed to by the Bureau, and additional funding is
    available.

R4s must specifically mention changes in SO end dates.

3\. Changes to Strategic Plans: Per ADS 201.3.4.17.a, formal amendments
to Strategic Plans should only be developed when new SOs are being
proposed for Bureau-level approval. A formal parameter message from the
Bureau is needed to initiate the process. Review and approval
requirements are the same as for full Strategic Plans (see ADS
201.3.4.15).

4\. Changes to Strategic and Special Objectives: Per ADS 201.3.4.17.b,
changes to SOs must be based on evidence that the direction of the
program must be modified. Significant changes at the SO level require
approval by the AA with concurrence from PPC, M, GC, BHR (as
appropriate), G (for non-G Strategic Plans), and regional Bureaus (for
central operating Bureau Strategic Plans). The R4 Cover Memo is used to
propose significant changes in SOs or to communicate changes made at the
Operating Unit level.

1.  

2.  

3.  5\. Changes to Results Frameworks: Per ADS 201.3.4.17.c, changes to
    Results Frameworks below the SO level should be made when necessary
    by SO Teams and Operating Units. Bureau or Washington-level approval
    is not normally required. Operating Units communicate changes in
    Results Frameworks through the annual R4 submission. The fact that
    there are changes should be mentioned in the R4 cover memo and
    changes should be described and explained in the SO narrative
    summary and reflected in the Results Framework annex.

6\. Limits to changes in indicator reporting: To comply with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) concept of benchmarking,
Operating Units must report the same indicators as last year unless it
was noted last year that different indicators would be reported. If your
OU plans to select a different indicator to report next year, in the
Results Framework Annex please state the current indicator, why it is no
longer useful, the alternative indicator that will be reported next
year, and its baseline data and targets. Last year it was recommended
that this be done in the cover memo. This year we are asking that
indicators you wish to use next year be added to the mandatory annex on
Results Frameworks, but that you mention in your cover memo whether
there are such changes. Please see Section II.G. and ADS 203.3.6.4. If
you have a newly approved Strategy, you do not yet have to specify the
indicators you will be reporting on under the new Strategy. Per ADS
201.3.4.13, a written Performance Monitoring Plan must be in place for
each SO within one year of Strategy approval unless otherwise prescribed
in the Strategy review reporting cable. This implies that for some
Operating Units that had strategies approved last year a full
Performance Plan may not yet exist. Those Operating Units should still
strive to include in their R4s three to four indicators per SO with
baseline and targets through FY 2003 if such indicators are available
and if (and only if) they meet the quality standards for R4 indicators
set forth in ADS 203.3.6.5. Progress reporting in the performance data
table may be impractical particularly if the baseline year is FY 2000
but progress still should be discussed in the SO narrative.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944074 .anchor}E. Who Should Submit

All Operating Units are required to submit complete R4s annually unless
they do not need program funds and/or operating expense funds after the
current fiscal year. Those OUs that do not need funds after the current
year should submit an Results Review

Non-presence programs with defined country-level Strategic Objectives
are also required to submit an R4 (see Section II.G 2 below). Washington
Program Offices will identify the OUs responsible for preparing these
R4s.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944075 .anchor}F. Electronic Format and
Performance Data Tables

The following standardized format instructions are aimed at allowing
more rapid and efficient distribution of R4 sections to appropriate
reviewers and for various external agency report preparation (e.g. the
Budget Justification, the Performance Overview). Submit both hard and
electronic copies of your document. Avoid the use of graphics. Do not
send password-protected documents. Prepare narratives using 12-point
Times New Roman typeface. Format your document for printing on 8.5 by 11
paper with one-inch margins.

To facilitate R4 preparation and to standardize processing, access and
retrieval of R4 data, we have replaced last year's R4 template with a
new, self-contained R4 processing application. Among other improvements,
the new application corrects problems Operating Units identified such as
the inability to spell check within the templates; difficulty adding and
deleting Strategic Objectives; creating a fully consolidated R4
document; and broken indicator tables. Examples of the application can
be viewed on the CDIE Website at http://CDIE.USAID.gov/R4_2003/.
Operating Units may download a blank copy from the same Website, or by
notifying CDIE at R4template@dec.CDIE.org. The application will be
available from the web site pre-populated with each Operating Unit's
FY2002 R4. Upon request, pre-populated applications can be emailed to
Operating Units wishing to receive them this way. Use of the application
is not mandatory, but we strongly encourage Operating Units to do so.

Some features of the application:1) the application automatically
generates a consolidated MS Word document that compiles separate files
for narrative, annexes and data files into a single document; budget and
other spreadsheets must still be printed out separately and be attached
as separate files when submitting the R4 to AID/W; 2) text from this
guidance cable will be available within the application as \'help\' ; 3)
multi-user: from a central location on your LAN, multiple users can work
on different sections simultaneously; 4) the application generates a
table of contents automatically with correct pagination; 5) menu
selections allow you to choose appropriate responses to certain elements
in the SO narrative; 6) indicator data is managed via an integrated
Access database; 7) integrated e-mail function transmits finished R4 to
Washington.

Questions regarding the application may be e-mailed to
R4template@dec.CDIE.org.

ADS Section 201.3.7 describes the procedures for managing the public
release of planning documents, including R4s, and requires the following
wording on the title page of each R4 \[This section is automatically
generated in the application\]:

Begin language

\-- The attached results information is from the FY 2003 Results review
and resource request (R4) for (country or OU) and was assembled and
analyzed by (USAID/OU).

\-- The R4 is a \"pre-decisional\" USAID document and does not reflect
results stemming from USAID budgetary reviews. Additional information on
the attached can be obtained from (Washington contact person and office
making the distribution).

\-- Related document information can be obtained from:

USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse

1611 N. Kent St., Suite 200

Arlington, Va. 22209-2111

Telephone: 703-351-4006 ext. 106

Fax: 703-351-4039

Email: docorder@dec.cdie.org

Internet: http://www.dec.org

End language

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944076 .anchor}G. Submission, Schedule and
Contact Points

Unless otherwise advised by your regional bureau, all R4s are to be
submitted by Friday, March 30, 2001. Full R4s should be submitted to
your Washington Program Office or the office/individual designated in
Section III below, \`Bureau Specific Guidance\'. The individual
designated in Section III below will forward a final, complete R4 with
all accompanying files, not later than April 30th, to the USAID
Development Experience Clearinghouse at <r4submit@dec.cdie.org> after
ensuring that any needed changes have been made.

Within each Bureau, the Program Office will be responsible for seeing
that the document is distributed. The R2a, consisting of the results
review narrative and performance data tables, will be posted on the
USAID web site: http://cdie.usaid.gov. Full file versions of the R4 may
also be requested by USAID employees from the Development Experience
Clearinghouse at the following email address: <docorder@dec.cdie.org>.
On July 1, 2001 all FY 2003 R2as will be made available on the agency's
external web sites at http://www.dec.org/partners.

Bureau R4 contact points are included in the bureau specific guidance in
Section III. Questions you send to your bureau contacts may be forwarded
to PPC to be posted on the PPC R4 FAQs web page (http://cdie.usaid.gov).
Cases of conflicting or uncleared supplementary guidance should be
reported to Leon Waskin and/or Parrie Henderson-O'Keefe, PPC/PC, and
copied to your Regional Bureau for resolution (see II.G. below).

Review schedule: all R4s are reviewed every year. In addition,
USAID/Washington will conduct a full review of each Operating Unit's
program, with Operating Unit participation, at least once every three
years. (See Section IV below).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944077 .anchor}H. Supplemental References

The following information on R4 preparation are available here for those
OUs with \"hot link\" capability, and on the intranet web page at
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm).
Partners will be able to access R4 guidance and related support
materials at the following external web site:
<http://www.dec.org/partners/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm>.

1\. <http://cdie.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaca927.pdf>. CDIE tips number 12 -
Guidelines for Indicator and Data Quality.

2\. <http://cdie.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaby215.pdf>. CDIE tips number 7 -
Preparing a Performance-Monitoring Plan

3\. <http://cdie.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaby226.pdf>. CDIE tips number 8 -
Establishing Performance Targets

4\. <http://cdie.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaca949.pdf>. CDIE tips number 14 -
Monitoring the Policy Reform Process

5\. <http://cdie.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaca947.pdf>. CDIE tips number 13 -
Building a Results Framework

6\. The new R4 application tool replacing the Microsoft Word templates
(Use is encouraged. Will be available Jan 17, 2001 on the USAID web page
or upon request via e-mail from <r4template@dec.cdie.org>)

7\. For OUs not using the application, performance data table macros can
be downloaded from
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm).

8\. R2b program budget, workforce and USDH tables with explanations can
be downloaded from
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm).

9\. Field support table can be downloaded from
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm).

10\. List of all Operating Unit Objective ID numbers. See
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm).

11\.
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/msw_docs/csfunds_guidance.doc](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/msw_docs/csfunds_guidance.doc).
Policy on Description and use of the Child Survival and Diseases Fund.

12\. Revised 2000 Agency Strategic Plan.
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944078 .anchor}II. R4 outline and drafting
instructions

Please note page length limits for each section. You are strongly urged
to stay within the prescribed page limits and make use of annexes for
additional information as described in II.G.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944079 .anchor}A. Cover Memo:

(1-2 Pages) Used, at operating unit\'s option and discretion, to
identify management or resource issues needing specific USAID/W
action/resolution.

The cover memo should address critical issues or changing circumstances
that may alter the management agreement, such as significant events that
may affect viability of one or more SOs, staffing adjustments, unusual
resource requests, and related Washington follow-up actions. Also use
this memo per guidance in I.D above to indicate whether there are
changes made to Performance Monitoring Plans and proposed adjustments to
the Management Agreement. For Operating Unit adjustments to the SO plan
and Results Framework, note which objectives or IRs have been selected
for closeout or termination for performance reasons. This R4 cover memo
is not intended for use outside the Agency but is intended for use in
Washington reviews and will be distributed to US Direct Hire staff (See
ADS201.3.7 for procedures on the public release of USAID documents).

Regional bureaus will respond to Operating Units within four weeks of
reviewing the R4. At a minimum, Regional Bureaus will inform Operating
Units by e-mail of the date by which issues raised in the cover memo
will be resolved.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944080 .anchor}B. R4 Part I: Overview and
Factors Affecting Program Performance

(up to 3 Pages).

Requirements for this section are limited to those factors necessary for
overall performance assessment and program prospects. The Operating Unit
should include:

\-- summary of progress in implementing the currently approved strategic
plan;

\-- significant changes that would cause you to propose a change to or
elimination of an objective or that account for poor performance
(crisis/conflict, etc.);

\-- most significant program achievements, regardless of the level, SO
or Intermediate Results (IR);

\-- country factors that have most influenced progress;

\-- overall prospects for progress through the budget request year,
including Operating Unit actions to overcome factors impeding progress;

\-- prospects for successful closeout or graduation (only for those
programs that have announced that they will close during or immediately
following the R4 reporting period);

\-- discussions of the US national interests and goals that established
the context for the development of the MPP and the linkages of Operating
Unit SOs to the MPP (MPP goals can be found in the template).

In some cases, Operating Units are still seeing results from fully
liquidated SOs from a previous strategy. Operating Units inclined to
make note of these achievements may do so here.

Operating Units scheduled to exit by FY 2001 to 2003 are requested to
provide information on program closeout or graduation. Building on
approved or draft closeout plans, use the R4 to convey expected progress
across the period leading to closeout. Reinforce your discussion of
expected progress and management actions with the following: (1)
Assessment of realistic prospects for achieving each objective within
the remaining timeframe; (2) Managerial and resource adjustments to
reinforce prospects for success; (3) Mechanisms for advancing
sustainability; and (4) Status of closeout plan preparation, approval or
implementation. Finally, if this is the Operating Unit's last Results
Review, Operating Units should provide a summary of the achievements of
the assistance program.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944081 .anchor}C. R4 Part II: Results Review By
SO:

(Up to 3 pages of text plus up to 4 performance data tables per SO
results framework. Application boilerplate is not included in the page
count) Information provided here will form the basis for the Budget
Justification narrative.

Formatting guidance: to facilitate subsequent use of this section for
the Budget Justification, use the following format headings: Header,
Operating Unit Self Assessment, Summary, Key Results, Performance and
Prospects, Possible Adjustment to Plans, Other Donor Programs, and Major
Contractors and Grantees and Performance Data Tables. The information in
the above format headings should include:

**- Header:** Each SO narrative should begin with the header containing
the following information: Operating Unit name; SO name; and the USAID/W
assigned SO numbers (as available in your pre-populated application or
on
[http://CDIE.USAID.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm](http://cdie.usaid.gov/r4_2003/r4prep.cfm).)
For questions on SO numbers, please contact Robert Baker in PPC/CDIE.

**- Operating Unit Self-assessment:** One of the following unambiguous
statements must, repeat must, be used to begin this section -- meeting
expectations, exceeding expectations, not meeting expectations, or
annual performance assessment unavailable (as in the case of new SOs). A
specific explanation in the Summary below is required.

**- Summary:** Begin the summary with a designation of (1) the link(s)
of the SO to one of the 21 Agency Objectives stated in the revised 2000
Agency Strategic Plan (ASP) and (2) the primary link to the MPP goal.
You may link the SO to more than one Agency Objective. If you link to
more than one Agency Objective please express as a percent your estimate
of the relative impact your efforts have on each of those Agency
Objectives. You apportionment must total 100 percent, but no more. The
apportionment should reflect the intended SO results against the
Agency's result, not budget accounts or codes.

Explain what the Operating Unit is trying to achieve with this SO. Use a
concise statement-of-change planned at the SO level over the life of the
SO, principal intermediate results necessary to achieve the SO, and
ultimate customers. As indicated above, explain the Operating Unit
self-assessment. In the case where non-achievement is significant and
material, the explanation must show an understanding of why a
performance shortfall occurred and the consequences of that shortfall.
The specific explanation must also support actions you are taking to
eliminate or reduce future shortfalls. Where expectations have not been
met or have been exceeded, the explanation should indicate what
adjustments might be required in terms of resetting targets or other
management actions**.** Mixed performance SOs may also be explained if
appropriate. This summary should reflect the description of the
objective that is needed for the Budget Justification.

For only those objectives funded by a mixture of child survival and
other accounts, the summary will identify which activities are being
funded with which funds. The activities funded must be consistent with
USAID policy guidance on the definition and use of Child Survival and
Disease Program funds. This can be done in two sentences. The policy
guidance on acceptable uses of child survival funds will be posted at
http://cdie.usaid.gov. Questions on this matter should be addressed to
Joyce Holfeld, PPC, and/or Joy Riggs-Perla, G/PHN. These instructions
should not be read as implying a need to restructure Results Frameworks
or indicators.

**- Key Results:** significant changes (positive or negative) relative
to targets for the indicators selected by the Operating Unit in last
years R4 (see Section I.D.3 above) should be discussed. The achievement
of indicator targets is not necessarily equivalent to the achievement of
results, so text should be clear regarding how achievements in the
selected indicators demonstrate that results are being achieved. Focus
on results where change has been most meaningful: the SO, principal IRs,
and/or lower-level IRs. As appropriate, highlight results that exemplify
the Agency\'s commitment to addressing gender concerns in development.
You are requested to use summary output data if higher level results
data is not available or incomplete. For objectives that have been
funded by both the Child Survival and Disease Fund and other accounts,
discussion of results must be disaggregated by source of funding. While
the ADS 200 Series now makes clear that Results Frameworks should
include key Intermediate Results achieved primarily (or even
exclusively) through the efforts of other donors, it remains important
to avoid appearing to claim as our own results that are largely based on
the efforts of others. Operating units should therefore seek to focus
their reporting on those results that are in USAID's manageable
interests.

**- Performance and Prospects:** As opposed to the "Key Results" section
above, highlight and explain significant differences between planned and
actual performance for the SO in general. As appropriate, explicitly
address gender concerns in the analysis of program performance. When
discussing program performance, Operating Units should provide
information (qualitative or quantitative) which gives a sense of USAID's
relative role and contribution to overall performance over the past year
(i.e. attribution).

Discuss longer-term SO performance trends and customer feedback wherever
important to provide perspective on recent progress. Note when more
formal, larger scale, evaluations contributed to your overall
assessment.

Describe performance prospects through the budget request year,
including anticipated benchmark achievements (and/or the most important
breakthrough(s) necessary for USAID to have an impact on the SO) and the
outlook for progress on SOs and key IRs that have not met expectations.
In terms of prospects, identify crisis or conflict issues that might
affect performance over the budget request year if appropriate.

The Operating Unit should indicate what will not be achieved should
requested funding not be forthcoming, but please do so without
referencing \"pre-decisional\" budget levels in the results reporting
section of your R4.

**- Possible Adjustment to Plans:** Cite factors such as Operating Unit
program adjustments, changed policy environment, and recently resolved
issues. Report on how potential crisis or conflict issues would affect
plans. Note in a sentence or two new key activities likely to be funded
by USAID, if any. In order to understand how performance assessment
leads to the modification of an activity or result, state any
evaluations or assessment by name that the OU has done on the SO in the
last 12 months and what modifications it led to as well as any
evaluations or assessments the OU is planning for the next 12 months.
Plan adjustments will indicate how the Operating Unit is managing for
results.

**- Other Donor Programs:** Since results at the SO level normally
reflect the efforts of multiple partners, Operating Units must report
the nature and extent of the substantive (not financial) contribution of
other donors to USAID SOs and a sense of the extent to which SO results
can be attributed to the host country and other donors. This will
provide context to USAID's relative contribution to change and can be
done in a sentence or two.

**- Major Contractors and Grantees:** Note in a sentence or two the key
activities being funded by USAID, and the principal contractors,
grantees or agencies implementing the activity.

If you feel the need to go beyond the 3-page limit for this section to
provide additional information on a particular SO for a specific target
audience, you may append to the R4 document an information annex for
that purpose as explained in Section II.F below. The intended target
audience should be noted at the top of the annex**.**

**- Performance Data Tables:** To complete the results review portion of
the R4, please supply for each SO four performance data tables per SO
Results Framework unless, 1) you are submitting data disaggregated by
gender, region, crop, etc, in which case you may submit more than four
tables, and/or 2) you are submitting an SO level indicator for the first
time to comply with Section I.A above (also see below). For all tables
submitted, supply baselines and targets to 2003. Do not report multiple
indicators in the same table (see 1 above on disaggregated data). Do not
include here additional tables for indicators you wish to report on next
year. (These belong in the Mandatory Annex on Results Frameworks in
Section II.G.) Use the \"comment\" section of each data table to
elaborate on the following: interpretation of the reported data \--
particularly to add qualitative interpretation to quantitative data and
quantitative significance to qualitative data; the degree to which
achievement of a target is attributable to USAID; to provide context;
whether and how the Operating Unit assessed the reliability of
performance data provided by others (e.g., contractors, host
government); plans to verify and validate performance data; and
significant data limitations and their implications for measuring
performance results against anticipated performance targets. Do not use
the comment section to describe performance.

**Meeting GPRA Requirements:** As noted in Section I.A above, USAID has
decided to use progress toward Operating Unit strategic objectives as
the fundamental measures of our compliance with GPRA. Operating Units
are therefore strongly encouraged, whenever possible, to include at
least one Strategic Objective-level performance indicator for each SO
reported in their R4 if results are being achieved at the SO level. If
such SO-level indicators are being reported for the first time
specifically to respond to this request, inclusion of these indicators
will not count against the normal four-indicator-per-SO limit.

In the case of new SOs, or SOs about which, for whatever reason, it is
not possible to report SO-level indicators, operating units should
instead identify at least one Intermediate Result-level indicator
submitted with this R4 that, in their judgment, provides a reasonable
illustration of progress toward the SO. In the narrative section,
operating units should explain precisely why they selected these
indicators; i.e., they should describe exactly what these indicators
illustrate about progress toward the SO. In these cases, operating units
should also state in the narrative when they expect to be able to begin
reporting on indicators at the SO level.

As stated in ADS 203.3.6.5, an assessment of data quality is required
under GPRA at least every three years and may be audited.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944082 .anchor}D. R4 Part III: Resource
Request:

(2 pages of text. Resource tables additional.)

Pending additional guidance, you should be prepared to address the
following concerns:

\- A brief rationale for program resource level and SO allocations,
including reasons for significant increases/decreases in OYB/BJ levels
established on the basis of the past year\'s R4.

\- Explain the justification for resource decisions. Give particular
attention to the ways in which performance and pipeline informed these
decisions, especially for SOs not meeting expectations and repeat poor
performers. It is expected that the resource decisions articulated here
reflect the use of performance information in management decisions.
There are no a priori assumptions about the relationship between
performance levels and resource allocation levels.

\- For each SO, pipelines must be reported and they must be consistent
with the pipelines reported in the Budget Justification (formerly the
CP). Explain any inconsistencies between pipeline levels as of September
30, 2000, and Agency forward funding policy presented in ADS Section
602. Note that pipelines, except under certain conditions, may cover up
to 12 months, but not less than six months, of planned expenditures
beyond the fiscal year. That is, obligations generally should fund
projected expenditures through the end of the fiscal year following the
year in which funds are obligated. Describe any corrective action being
taken, exceptions to the forward funding policy being requested by the
operating unit director, and how pipeline levels projected through the
planning period will be consistent with the forward funding policy.

## E. Program, OE, USDH, Workforce, FSN Separation & Trust Fund, and Controller. 

There are seven basic data submission requirements for program,
operating and workforce expenses. Formats for the following tables will
be sent in a package with the application. If you do not receive funds
for one of these categories, you should nevertheless return the blank
tables in your R4.

1\) Budget request by program/country (table Country03r2b_SO'.xls).
Breaks out each SO by the Agency's goal/strategy areas including splits
between bilateral and field support requirements. These tables must be
filled out for each of FYs 2001 to 2003 including targets. There are
separate tabs within this file for each fiscal year (including an FY
2002 alternate tab), broken down by account. In addition, separate tabs
have been added for the Child Survival sub-directives (polio, DCOF, and
Infectious Diseases) for FY 2002, FY 2002 alternate, and FY 2003.
Changes from the FY 2002 R4 tables include the addition of a vulnerable
children sector, deletion of the health promotion sector and the
addition of a starting pipeline column. The starting pipeline column on
the FY 2001 tab must agree with the end of FY 2000 pipeline data, as
reflected in the FY 2002 Budget Justification tables, or the latest CN.
Operating Units are reminded that field support is considered to be
fully expended in the fiscal year following obligation. Hence, only FY
2000 obligated field support would be reflected in the FY 2001 starting
pipeline data. When Operating Units request program funds for each SO,
the level requested should include estimated/anticipated program funded
ICASS costs. Regional Bureaus are also reminded to request funds
accordingly when preparing regional SO submissions where annual program
ICASS requirements are not met through bilateral programs.

2\) Workforce (table country03r2b_wf.xls used by each Operating Unit in
Washington and overseas), showing the distribution of the various types
of workforce (end of year on-board levels) by SO and by management
categories. Totals must be in whole numbers;

3\) USDH staffing requirements (table Country03r2b_dh.xls used by each
Operating Unit in Washington and overseas), showing the numbers of USDH
in each backstop expected by end of year FY 2001 and requests for FY
2002 - FY 2003. The purpose of this table is to help the agency make
recruitment decisions to ensure we have the right mix of skills on
board. These data are necessary for development of the FY 2001 Foreign
Service recruitment plan. Note that the occupations and backstops are
listed in a different order this year. Particularly for out-years, the
requests should match the functions of the position without regard to
the backstop of the incumbent.

4\) Operating expenses (table country03r2b_OE.xls used by overseas
Operating Units and table washorg03r2b_oe.xls used by Washington
Operating Units), showing the proposed use of OE and trust fund
resources by resource category for the FY 2001 estimate, the FY 2002
target, and the FY 2003 target and request levels. For overseas OE
tables, identify the U.S. dollars used for local currency purchases and
the exchange rate used in computations.

5\) Trust fund and FSN voluntary separation payment/withdrawal
information (table Country03r2b_tfFSN.xls used only by overseas
Operating Units) showing a) availability of local currency trust funds
and b) deposits to and withdrawals from the FSN voluntary separation
account. Please note that if an overseas unit shows obligations under
object class 12.1 on the OE table for FSN voluntary separation (FSN
direct hire or FSN PSC), then the FSN voluntary separation portion of
this table must be submitted. The OE totals on this table must match the
total FSN voluntary separation amounts for FSN direct-hire and FSN PSCs
on the OE table. Also, exchange rates used in computing the dollar
equivalent of local currency trust funds must be provided\--this
information is required to be included in the agency\'s Budget
Justification.

6\) Controller operations (table country03r2b_co.xls). This is in the
same format as the overseas OE table, but is to reflect only those costs
associated with the office of the controller at overseas missions.

7\) Working capital fund requirements (table country03r2b_cif.xls). Same
format as the OE table without non-applicable RCCS. Separate special
schedules will be provided to M, G, GC, and LPA for their
\"administrative expense cost center\" budget accounts. M/B will issue
FY 2001 OE and U.S. direct-hire workforce levels to bureaus (including
levels available for overseas missions), FY 2002 targets, and FY 2003
targets as soon as decisions are made.

8\) G field support table (country03gfs.xls). Use this table to list
services to be provided through G-managed contracts, cooperative
agreements and grants, with a high-side estimate of the level of
resources needed to fully fund these services. The table provides a
distinction for: (a) funds that are part of the unit\'s planning level,
but designated for obligation and management by the G Bureau; and (b)
funds that are part of the unit\'s planning level and OYB and obligated
or subobligated by the unit through G bureau mechanisms (unit
obligation, generally referred to as buy-in). In addition, please
specify the following in the field support table: (1) the SO for which
these services are needed, (2) the name and number of the G bureau
activity to be used, (3) the level of priority the unit places on the
field support and buy-in services, (4) the duration of the field support
and buy-in services; and (5) the name of the entity obligating the
funds\--G or Operating Unit. For FY 2002 and FY 2003, Operating Units
should think creatively about and describe in a footnote what types of
services are needed, even if the G bureau does not appear to have an
existing mechanism at the present time. The Regional Coordinators in the
Global Bureau Centers and G/WID use the information in the field support
tables to plan and prepare for future programming needs of missions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944084 .anchor}F. Special Reporting Situations

1\. G Bureau Field Support

The development impact of Global Bureau field support (services and
commodities requested and funded by Operating Units) will be captured
and reported in Operating Unit Strategic Objectives in the results
review portion of the R4. See section E. above for the discussion of the
field support table.

2\. Development Credit Authority

The development impact of DCA will be captured and reported in Operating
Unit Strategic Objectives in the results review portion of the R4.

2\. BHR Programmed Resources

To help meet Congressional reporting requirements for Title II
resources, the following information should be included in R4 documents:

\-- Integrated programs: in cases where Title II and dollar-funded
activities are integrated to support one or more strategic or special
objectives, the SO performance and prospects section of the narrative
must include a brief description of the contribution and effectiveness
of PL-480 resources to enhanced food security in the country using
appropriate quantifiable indicator data from the Performance Monitoring
Plan. BHR/FFP has an illustrative list of indicators for this purpose
and can advise, if necessary, on which one of your existing indicators
would work best.

The SO performance and prospects section of the narrative contained in
the R4 will form the basis of the agency\'s performance assessment for
integrated programs. BHR review of Previously Approved Activity (PAA)
submissions will continue.

Cooperating sponsors (CS) and Operating Unit SO teams are expected to
work together in reviewing the utility and cost/benefit of performance
indicators for the entire SO including indicators used by Title II
sponsors as specified in prior agreements. Agreement on elimination of
CS indicators will be confirmed through PAA reviews with Operating Unit
inputs, through other consultations with Operating Units and BHR/FFP,
and if necessary, through grant or cooperative agreement amendments.

\-- Stand-alone programs: When non-emergency Title II resources do not
contribute directly to a strategic or special objective, Operating Units
are asked to include a special information annex to the R4 per section
II.G below which addresses in 1-2 pages the following information: (1)
the contribution of these resources to food security in the country; and
(2) the effectiveness of the programs supported with these resources in
achieving results agreed upon in the relevant Development Activity
Proposal (DAP). The CS reports on Title II activities should be
referenced in the annex provided directly to BHR/FFP in addition to
Operating Units. BHR/FFP will use this information, along with PAA
submissions, to make food resource allocation decisions. Agreement on
elimination of CS indicators will be confirmed through PAA reviews with
Operating Unit inputs, through other consultations with Operating Units
and BHR/FFP, and if necessary, through grant or cooperative agreement
amendments.

\-- Other programs: BHR will report on Title II emergency, disaster and
transition assistance (IDA) results and resource needs, and may contact
relevant Operating Units for assistance in doing so. BHR will also
report on PVC grants to strengthen the capacity of USAID's PVO and CDO
partners as well as American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA) Grants.

3\. Closeout and graduation. In keeping with approved closeout plans, if
not previously reported or if there are changes in what was previously
reported, please report the following in a special information annex per
section II.G below: (1) brief schedule for termination of principal
activities; and (2) recommendations to continue selected activities
after closeout with related rationale and plan.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944085 .anchor}G. Supplemental Information
Annexes

As in years past, we are requesting certain additional reporting for
purposes other than assessing country SO performance (such as regional
trend analysis, reporting on multi-country initiatives, and special
external reporting needs that may vary year-to-year). This reporting
will be provided through mandatory supplemental annexes so as to focus
the main R4 text on performance vis-a-vis agreed upon strategy
objectives. To keep these requirements clear and limited, PPC and the R4
working group will not approve requests not included in this guidance.
Any such request should be reported to Leon Waskin and/or Parrie
Henderson-O'Keefe, PPC/PC, for resolution with the working group.

Of the annexes described below, only three are mandatory for all R4s.
These can be completed in no more than five pages or in a table. Another
five annexes are mandatory for certain Operating Units only (Title II
supplementary performance data required by BHR in Section II.F.2 above,
non-presence country reporting, E&E, GCC implementers, Greater Horn of
Africa related programs). Operating Units may voluntarily, as noted in
II.C above, provide additional information on SO performance or program
related matters in a special information annex (e.g. to report on SOs
under a former Strategy where results are still being achieved, to
report on closeout and graduation per II.F.3 above, etc.). The voluntary
annex on success stories remains.

Microenterprise Reporting: Separate from the R4 submission, the
Microenterprise Results Reporting System (MRR), which is managed by
G/EGAD/MD, will again be used in FY 2001 to capture microenterprise
data. Operating units will receive instructions by either cable or
e-mail. Instructions for reporting FY 2000 actual obligations will be
sent in December 2000. Data will be due January 15, 2000. Institutional
questionnaires will be available on-line January 15, 2001. Questions
should be addressed to <MRR2000@mrreporting.org>.

Security profiles: Instructions will be sent by cable from the Security
Office by March 1, 2001 to all Operating Units for reporting on general
security profiles at respective overseas locations for determining
anticipated security needs and commensurate OE requirements for the
coming budget year. Responses are due April 1, 2001 but are NOT to be
included in the R4, but are to be sent by classified cable.

1.  Mandatory for all Operating Units

[Information annex topic:]{.underline} Environmental Impact

[Requested by:]{.underline} Bureau environment officers and program
offices.

[What the information annex will be used for:]{.underline} Component
one - A notional plan for any new or amended initial environmental
examinations (IEE) or environmental assessments (EA) that Operating
Units expect to need for the coming year, and a timeframe for approval
if known (per 22 CFR 216). This serves as a management tool for the
Operating Unit and its Bureau Environmental Officer to plan for needed
work, staff time and budgets that are required prior to obligation of
funds. Component two - A brief statement of whether Strategic Objectives
and related activities are in compliance with previously approved IEEs,
categorical exclusions (CE), or EAs. This information will be used to
identify any problem areas that may require additional resources in
order to be brought into compliance.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} The first component on
anticipated determinations for new activities could be a short notional
list or table listing any anticipated new activities or sets of
activities that might need environmental determinations, as known at the
time the annex is prepared. If there are none anticipated, please so
state. The second component will be either a single sentence that all
activities are in compliance with their corresponding IEEs, CEs or EAs,
or a brief listing of activities (by SO) that are not currently in
compliance and describing what Washington resources may be needed to
bring the SO into compliance. Note: If an activity is not in compliance
with its environmental requirements, it should not be reported as being
successful in meeting its objectives.

[Maximum page length:]{.underline} 1 page

[Requirement:]{.underline} mandatory for all USAID Operating Units.

[Information Annex Topic:]{.underline} Updated Results Framework.

[Requested by:]{.underline} PPC/CDIE/PME

[What the information annex will be used for:]{.underline} (1) CDIE
maintains a database for the Agency of R4 information that includes a
complete listing of all Agency SOs and IRs by sector. Agency staff and
others frequently request this information. Its continued usefulness is
dependent on assurances that it is up-to-date. (2) OUs may find it
necessary to change indicators. Indicator changes may be reported or (if
Bureau review is required) proposed here.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} Part A: This should be a
simple listing of **current, approved** SOs and IRs organized to show
their relationship to each other (for example, lower level IRs could be
indented immediately below higher level IRs or the SO). Do not include
*proposed* framework changes (if approved, they will appear in this
annex in next year's R4). Part B: *If you will be changing the
indicators you will be reporting next year,* i.e. selecting a different
indicator or indicators from your PMP to report on next year, please
include in this annex the current indicator(s), the proposed
indicator(s), and the baseline and target for the proposed indicator(s)
to 2003.

[Maximum page length:]{.underline} as necessary.

[Requirement:]{.underline} mandatory for all USAID Operating Units.

[Information Annex Topic:]{.underline} Institutional and Organizational
Development

[Requested by:]{.underline} PPC

[What the information annex will be used for:]{.underline} Prepare the
cross-cutting theme chapter of the FY 2000 Performance Overview. The
2000 revision of the Agency Strategic Plan includes five cross-cutting
themes in addition to the six Agency goals and the management goal. It
also includes a commitment to report on one of the themes in depth in
the Performance Overview each year. Institutional and organizational
development has been chosen as the theme to be reported on in the 2000
Performance Overview. The Performance Overview chapter aims to document
the following points, based on the information requested:

support for institutional and organizational development is
systematically programmed in results frameworks for the majority of
Agency OUs; support for institutional and organizational development
systematically cross-cuts Agency goal areas in OU programs;
institutional and organizational development support is provided to
public sector, private for-profit and private non-profit organizations
consistent with program objectives; a variety of types of
capacity-building (e.g., financial accountability and sustainability,
management and leadership, service delivery, political advocacy,
technical expertise) is being supported.

The information provided by the OUs will enable the Agency to support
the points that are stated as hypotheses above. Each point will also be
illustrated with descriptions of activities.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} Using the definitions of
institutional and organizational development stated on the first page of
the Excel table (country03inst.xls) for this annex, provided to each
Operating Unit along with the Excel budget tables, and pre-populated
with information available from CDIE, OUs are required to:

-   verify that the IRs and indicators identified for their programs
    fall within the definition of institutional and/or organizational
    development provided;

-   correct the list as necessary to add or delete IRs and indicators
    that match the definition or delete IRs that either do not match the
    definition or are no longer included in the Operating Unit's results
    framework; and

-   identify the recipients of institutional and organizational
    development support as public sector, private for-profit, private
    non-profit, listing all that apply in each case.

The required information should be submitted using the table provided
(country03inst.xls) in each Operating Unit's package of tables. A copy
of the file for the table (not pre-populated), as well as IRs and
indicators for all OUs that were available as of December 1, 2000 can
also be found on the Agency web site at
<http://cdie.usaid.gov/R4_2003/R4prep.cfm> after January 1, 2001.

OUs are invited to describe their efforts over the past five years to
promote institutional and organizational development. Descriptions could
include illustrations, success stories, challenges, a focus on a
specific institution or organization. Descriptions are welcome, but not
mandatory.

[Maximum page length]{.underline}: Completed table required. Up to 2
pages of narrative optional.

[Requirement:]{.underline} Mandatory.

2\. Mandatory for some Operating Units only

[Information Annex Topic:]{.underline} Non-Presence Countries (NPCs)

[Requested by:]{.underline} M, PPC, and Regional Bureaus

[What the information annex will be used for:]{.underline} Every NPC
program with defined country-level strategic or special objectives is
subject to R4 reporting. USAID regional offices and bilateral missions
which have been assigned specific oversight responsibilities by their
regional bureaus for NPC programs with country-level objectives, are
requested to prepare an R4 submission for each non-presence country. NPC
R4s may be stand-alone or included as this annex to the Operating
Units\' own R4 document (one annex per NPC). Missions with bilateral or
twinning responsibilities for Title II programs are also requested to
submit a supplemental annex as discussed in Section II.F above
(stand-alone programs). Operating Units who are unable to comply with
this request should consult with their regional bureau for assistance.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} Follow the guidance
contained in Sections II.B through II.E above. An indication of the
linkages between USAID-funded interventions and the MPP goals for that
country is paramount as is a discussion of significant program
achievements and how these are contributing to MPP goals. Be sure to
include related data tables for indicators and resource requests.

[Maximum page length:]{.underline} 2-4 pages of narrative.

[Requirement:]{.underline} mandatory for NPCs with defined Country-level
strategic or special objectives.

[Information Annex Topic]{.underline}: Global Climate Change

[Requested by]{.underline}: G/ENV for all reporting units attributing
resources toward USAID climate change Initiative

[What the information annex will be used for]{.underline}: This
narrative will enable G/ENV to prepare the annual report to Congress, as
required in FY 2001 legislation.

[Specific points to be addressed]{.underline}: Reporting units will
report on climate change activities by following special guidance that
includes indicator tables and a template for a separate narrative. This
guidance will be available on the Agency R4 web site, and through G/ENV.
Both the indicator and narrative information are mandatory, and should
discuss activities related to: (1) increasing developing country
participation in the United Nations framework convention on climate
change, (2) decreasing net greenhouse gas emissions, and (3) reducing
developing country vulnerability to climate change impacts.

[Maximum page length]{.underline}: indicator tables and 2-4 pages of
narrative.

[Requirement]{.underline}: mandatory for those missions and
Washington-based offices attributing resources toward the Agency Global
Climate Change Initiative.

[Information annex topic:]{.underline} Greater Horn of Africa Initiative
(GHAI)

[Requested by:]{.underline} Africa Bureau

[What the information annex will be used for:]{.underline} To prepare
the required annual report on the GHAI that permits overall assessment
of progress on this program. All agency operating units implementing
GHAI Activities (including BHR and G Operating Units) need to report
GHAI status and issues.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} Those operating units
which are directly managing GHAI funds should report explicitly on the
relevant activities and results, including which GHAI and operating unit
intermediate result they support. Results not captured in operating
units' main SO performance narrative should be highlighted in the
supplemental GHAI annex. Examples of operating units directly managing
GHAI funds include, inter alia, USAID/Uganda for water hyacinth
management activities, BHR/OFDA for climate outlook activities, the
Sudan and Somalia programs, and multiple bilateral missions receiving
Conflict Quick Response and Conflict Pilot Activities funds. The main
text of the REDSO/ESA R4 will capture GHAI results since it manages the
majority of GHAI-funded activities.

Operating units contributing to GHAI results with their own resources
should report in the relevant strategic objective section of the
operating unit's R4, with a brief recap of these results in the annex.
Bureaus are reminded that M, PPC, and GC operating units, while not
easily captured through the traditional results reporting indicators,
have made numerous contributions to the achievement of GHAI results.

Operating Units should also indicate if and how the GHAI "operational
framework" is being applied to both GHAI-funded activities and the
overall bilateral portfolio. The operational framework reflects the GHAI
principles of African ownership, strategic coordination, linking relief
and development, regional perspectives, and promoting stability. For
example, if an activity is co-funded with other donors, other USAID
Operating Units and/or other USG agencies, this would be a good example
of strategic coordination. Operating units contributing in other ways to
the operational framework need to report on specific examples of these
results in the annex. A few very specific examples of the application of
the GHAI Principles are needed, rather than

generalized statements.

GHAI bilateral missions should also report on progress to date towards
convergence, whether this be through formal strategy adjustments and
modifications or through changes in programs/activities.

Finally, in all GHAI-related reporting in the R4, operating units are
encouraged to report in greater specificity on a smaller number of GHAI
activities rather than to report in general, vague language on a vast
number

of activities.

[Maximum page length:]{.underline} two pages

[Requirement:]{.underline} Required for Africa Bureau GHAI bilateral
missions and central bureaus operating units managing GHAI funds,
working toward GHAI convergence and/or contributing to the GHAI
operational framework.

[Information Annex Topic:]{.underline} E&E R4 detailed budget
information

[Requested by:]{.underline} E&E/PCS to meet reporting requirements of
State Coordinators offices

[What the information annex will be used for:]{.underline} these tables
will be used by the coordinators in the budget allocation process.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} for CEE countries,
reporting would be at the SO, project, subproject/grantee/contractor
level. For NIS countries, reporting is at the SO, project, project
component, grantee/contractor level.

[Maximum page length:]{.underline} one table per country

[Requirement:]{.underline} this supplemental R4 annex requirement is
mandatory for E&E missions. It does not apply to non-E&E missions.

2.  

3\. Voluntary annexes

[Information Annex Topic:]{.underline} Success Stories

[Requested by:]{.underline} LPA, PPC and Operating Bureaus

[What this information will be used for:]{.underline} Speeches, Hill
testimony, public relations, Performance Overview.

[Specific points to be addressed:]{.underline} LPA and the operating
Bureaus are looking for success stories that can be told in human terms
for use in speeches and press stories. Audiences are often more
impressed by stories about other human beings which can bring meaning to
statistics and abstract ideas such as \`indicators' and 'intermediate
results'. The idea is to show the people level impact of our assistance
on the lives of specific individuals. It is very helpful to have the
names and location of the people involved. You can improve access to
your stories by labeling each with the related objective number or
objective title. The R4 preparation process provides a good opportunity
to pull together success stories so useful in testimony and elsewhere.
For further information on writing success stories, contact Barbara
Bennett in LPA.

[Maximum page length:]{.underline} 1 page

[Requirement:]{.underline} voluntary.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944086 .anchor}III. Bureau Specific Guidance

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944087 .anchor}A. Africa Bureau Supplemental
Guidance

NON-PRESENCE REPORTING: This year, Sudan and Somalia are requested to
submit separate abbreviated R4s (apart from REDSO/ESA). REDSO/ESA is
responsible for reporting on activities in Burundi. Missions with
twinning responsibilities for Title II programs are also requested to
submit a supplemental Annex as discussed in section II G. Accordingly,
Senegal should report on the stand-alone programs in Guinea Bissau,
Gambia, Mauritania, and Cape Verde; Mali should report on Burkina Faso,
Niger, Chad, and Cote d'Ivoire. Regional activities in non-presence
countries should be reported under the appropriate SOs of the operating
unit responsible for results.

DUE DATE: All R4 documents, including completed tables, and GHAI or
non-presence country annexes and other required annexes (as indicated in
this guidance cable) are due no later than March 30, 2001 with the
exception of the following regional programs: REDSO/ESA, RCSA, and
AFR/SD. R4s for these operating units are due no later than April 13,
2001. Earlier submissions are welcome.

SEND TO: All R4 documents EXCEPT budget, OE, and workforce tables are to
be electronically submitted to the country desk officer and copied to
the appropriate AFR/DP regional contact. Regional contacts are as
follows: Southern Africa -- Kathie Keel; East Africa -- Ruth Buckley;
West Africa -- Curt Grimm and Sharon Pauling (Nigeria and Liberia).
Annexes on the GHAI activities should also be sent to Lynne Cripe,
REDSO/ESA. Resource request tables should be sent directly to Carrie
Johnson, AFR/DP/PAB. OE and workforce tables should be sent directly to
both Thomas Williams, AFR/DP/PAB, and Steve Malinowski, M/B. Kathie Keel
will forward all R4s to the Development Experience Clearinghouse.

SO NARRATIVES AND PERFORMANCE DATA TABLES (PDT): AFR Operating Units
should highlight efforts to integrate gender and promote synergies
between objectives, especially through institution and civil society
strengthening, broadening participation and a focus on poverty reduction
and people level impacts. Operating units are encouraged to report in
the body of the R4 under the relevant SO how programs are achieving
gender integration, cross-sectoral synergies, participation, African
leadership and ownership as well as contributing towards Presidential
Initiatives. AFR notes the concern that it can be hard to compress the
full range of performance results and context setting into the page
limits for each strategic or special objective. Although agency guidance
specifically limits the number of pages and PDT, informational annexes
may be submitted if a mission decides that further space is needed.
While not a requirement, operating units are invited to submit a full
set of performance data tables to both their desk officer and
AFR/DP/POSE if this will enhance understanding of results.

Alternative FY 2002 budget request: AFR missions and operating units may
submit an alternative program budget request table for FY 2002 which
presents requested changes from either the FY 2002 current services BPBS
level or the FY 2002 BJ levels (if one has been published). However, any
alternative submission must also contain a budget table showing the FY
2002 BJ base request.

All R4s will be reviewed in separate country-specific sessions. Missions
can expect feedback from their R4 review to be communicated to them from
the CDO.

QUESTIONS: All questions with regard to the AFR R4, strategic planning
and performance assessment processes should be directed to Gary Imhoff,
AFR/DP/POSE. The DP strategic planning and assessment team will backstop
queries as follows: Southern Africa \-- Kathie Keel; East Africa \--
Ruth Buckley; West Africa \-- Curt Grimm and Sharon Pauling (Nigeria and
Liberia). Questions regarding Food for Peace, Title II reporting should
be directed to Nancy McKay, AFR/DP/PFP. Questions regarding the GHAI
annex should be directed to Lynne Cripe, REDSO/ESA, and copied to Ruth
Buckley, AFR/DP/POSE. Questions regarding the completion and submission
of the resource tables should be referred to Carrie Johnson, AFR/DP/PAB.
Any questions regarding the completion and submission of the workforce
or OE tables should be referred to John Winfield, AFR/AMS and Thomas
Williams, AFR/DP/OEFM. For the mandatory GCC annex, please contact Jim
Graham, AFR/SD, for the list of GCC priority countries.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944088 .anchor}B. Asia Near East Bureau
Supplemental Guidance

SUBMISSION INFORMATION: Operating units should send an electronic copy
of the complete R4 to their respective desk officer and to ANE/SPOTS,
Jennifer Hoffman, no later than Friday, March 30, 2001. Patricia Jordan
will forward all R4s to the Development Experience Clearinghouse.

PREPARATION QUESTIONS: Operating units with general questions about R4
preparation should contact ANE/SPOTS, Pat Jordan or Jennifer Hoffman.
Questions about financial resources should be directed to ANE/SPOTS, Bob
Hudec or Yvette Hart. Workforce questions should be directed to ANE/AMS,
Andrew Luck.

COVER MEMO ISSUES: The Operating Unit's R4 cover memo should clearly
indicate any actions the Operating Unit expects of USAID/W. The cover
memo also should clearly highlight any requested changes to the
management agreement, such as proposed strategy extensions; addition or
deletion of an SO; significant changes in SO-level indicators, targets,
or intended results; and significant changes in resource expectations
that affect the feasibility of the strategic plan.

CROSS-CUTTING THEMES: Operating units are encouraged to discuss the
following cross-cutting themes in the body of the R4 under the relevant
SO(s): (a) how programs are achieving gender integration; (b)
significant cross-sectoral synergies; and (c) information technology
(IT) achievements and issues.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944089 .anchor}C. Europe Eurasia Bureau
Supplemental Guidance

1\. Changes in the management agreement

The E&E bureau provided information on what constitutes changes in the
management agreement in its September 1, 1998 guidance on strategic
plans. That guidance is still relevant. Changes in the management
agreement include: addition or deletion of a strategic objective;
significant change in the level of impact (intended result) specified
for the strategic objective; significant change in the indicators or
targets for the SO and/or principal IRs (the principal IRs in our view
are those at the level just below the SO); significant change in
resource expectations affecting plan feasibility. EE missions planning
to make changes of this magnitude should note this in the R4 cover memo
and request approval of a change in the management agreement.

2\. Special initiatives

Report progress and resource requirements for special initiatives shown
under SO 4.1. For each such special initiative, EE Operating Units are
requested to briefly report progress in a narrative and against at least
one indicator, including future targets for that indicator, and to
identify future resource needs.

3\. As mentioned in the guidance, please format your submissions so they
print on 8½ by 11 paper. Utilizing the European paper lengths causes the
printers in USAID/W to stop and requires manual restarting, greatly
impeding distribution.

4\. This guidance requires that the cover page of the R4 contain
language identifying (primarily for those outside USAID) the Washington
contact person for each R4 and the distributing office. For Europe R4s
that Person is Clinton Doggett. For Eurasia R4s the person is Sherry
Grossman. In both cases the office is EE/PCS.

5\. The mission contact point in EE/W for information on R4s is Jeff
Evans in EE/PCs. However, program budget questions should be directed to
Sheila Cunningham (for Europe) or Pat Brown (for Eurasia), EE/PCS, and
OE questions should be directed to Mario Rocha or Audrey Doman, EE/OM.
Jeff Evans will forward all R4s to the Development Experience
Clearinghouse.

6\. Submission dates and addressee

EE has already advised missions of the due date for each R4. All R4s
should be submitted to Jeff Evans, EE/PCS with Europe R4s also submitted
to Clinton Doggett and Eurasia R4s also submitted to Sherry Grossman.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944090 .anchor}D. Latin America And Caribbean
Bureau Supplemental Guidance

1\. Please submit the full R4 (in hard copy and electronically) to
LAC/SPO (Jeannie Bassett and Toraanna Francis) by March 15, 2001.
Jeannie Bassett will forward all R4s to the Development Experience
Clearinghouse. When assembling the hard copy version of the R4, make
sure that the top of landscape tables and charts appears on the left
side when the documents are bound.

2\. Intensive Program Reviews. Updated ADS 200 guidance requires
intensive program reviews for each operational unit at least every three
years. These reviews may be but do not have to be conducted in
conjunction with the R-4. The Mid-Cycle Reviews will use the current R-4
to inform the review process and will be conducted primarily in the
springtime. LAC is preparing a schedule for spring 2001 mid-cycle
reviews and will inform Missions when this process is complete.

3\. Objective ID Numbers. Missions are asked to use the new seven-digit
Objective ID numbers listed on CDIE\'s Internet Webpage in the R-4 when
describing their programs. This is becoming increasingly important
because these numbers are key to the Phoenix accounting system and will
be used for all program financial transactions. It is also important for
assuring consistency between all key programming documents. If there are
any questions on this issue, please contact Susan Hill in LAC/SPO.

4\. If there are any questions of the R4, particularly regarding
regional issues, please contact your respective, backstop: Linda
Bernstein (Caribbean); Donald Soules (Central America); Susan Hill or
Abdul Wahab (South America).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944091 .anchor}E. G Bureau Supplemental
Guidance

All Global Bureau Operating Units (G/DG, G/ENV, G/PHN, G/HCD, G/EGAD,
G/WID and G/PDSP-Peace Corps) must prepare an R4 NLT March 30, 2001. G
Operating Units will need to submit the R4 to the USAID Development
Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) so that the R4 can be prepared in PDF
format. Once prepared in PDF format by DEC and returned to the Operating
Unit, the R4 should be submitted to G/PDSP, Richard Whitaker and
Victoria Ose. G/PDSP, Richard Whitaker will again serve as the G
Bureau's R4 Coordinator.

G Operating Units are expected to address the following in the R4:
technical leadership, field support, direct development impact, and
programmatic adjustments made in the management of activities. All G
Operating Units are required to identify at least one "area for
improvement" in the R4.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944092 .anchor}F. Bureau for Humanitarian
Response (BHR) Supplemental Guidance

BHR Operating Units will strive to meet the Agency\'s R4 submission
date. BHR/PPE will establish submission due dates with respective
Operating Units. Please submit all R4s to Frank Alejandro, BHR/PPE.
Frank will forward all R4s to the Development Experience Clearinghouse.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc501944093 .anchor}IV. Washington Review of R4s

In reviewing the FY 2003 R4 submissions, Washington Bureaus will
continue to adhere to the guidance provided in the October 20, 1998
memorandum on "Revisions to USAID's Performance Planning, Monitoring,
and Reporting System" reviewed and approved at the 1998 worldwide
Mission Director's Conference and subsequently reflected in ADS 203.3.8.
While there is, in accordance with that guidance, no longer prescribed
formats for annual R4 reviews, all R4s will be read and evaluated for
performance and it is expected that Mission Directors and other staff
will still have consultations in Washington in conjunction with annual
leave or other events. Moreover, Bureaus will continue to hold, as
prescribed by that guidance, a mid-course strategic implementation
review of each Operating Unit program at least once every three years.
This will be the occasion for a thorough review of how the program is
proceeding according to the strategic plan and as a supporting element
of a country's Mission Performance Plan (MPP). Such reviews are to
include presentations by Operating Units to a broad audience, including
representatives from regional Bureaus, PPC, M, G, and BHR. Special
circumstances and changing situations may require that reviews be held
more frequently.

PPC will provide information on non-performance factors. The three
non-performance factors that inform the budget process\--need, country
commitment, and foreign policy\--will continue to inform budget
allocation decisions, but no attempt will be made to convert these into
a composite numerical score. However, in USAID's consultations with OMB
on our compliance with GPRA, OMB emphasized the importance of explicitly
incorporating these performance and non-performance factors in the
process for making decisions about resource allocations. Therefore, a
summary table will be prepared by each Bureau showing for each SO the
final performance summary and the three non-performance categorizations.
No effort will be made to create a composite summary score incorporating
all factors. The summary table will be used by bureaus as a starting
point for resource allocation decisions.

In the short-term (one-to-two years), difficulties in achieving expected
progress on a particular SO should result in increased management
attention at both mission and Washington levels. If, after reasonable
efforts, progress is not improved, then it follows that the budget
planned for that SO may be increased, reduced, temporarily suspended, or
even reallocated completely and the SO terminated or significantly
redesigned. Such decisions will be arrived at collaboratively by
Operating Unit and Bureau/Washington management.

Objectives whose performance significantly exceeds expectations will
likely receive special attention in the Agency Performance Overview.
High performance will not necessarily justify a claim for additional
resources beyond that needed to achieve agreed upon results.

Management Agreement cables will be prepared only when there are
specific changes to the Management Agreement initiated with approval of
the country (or unit) strategic plan.

Bureaus will review and respond to issues raised in the R4 cover memo
and to the R4 itself within four weeks of review unless other
arrangements are worked out with the Operating Unit. At a minimum, the
OU will receive an e-mail from Washington telling the OU when cover memo
issues will be addressed.

  -------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ---------- -------------
  **File name**        **Notice     **Effective   **Editorial   **ADS CD   **Remarks**
                       Date**       Date**        Revision      No.**      
                                                  Date**                   

  IU2-18_122800_cd22   12/22/2000   12/22/2000    N/A           ADS CD 22  New
  -------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------- ---------- -------------