PROREP 
(PROGRAM 
REPRESENTASI)
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP)
REVISED JUNE 2015
Contract No. AID-497-C-11-00002
June 3, 2015
This document has been produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It has been prepared by Chemonics International Inc.
Project Contact Information:
Chemonics International Inc., John K. Johnson, Chief of Party, Gedung BRI II, Suite 2806, Jl. 
Jend. Sudirman No. 44-46, Jakarta 10210 jkjohnson@chemonics.com
Chemonics International Inc., Veenita Kaushik, Director, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 
20006, USA vkaushik@chemonics.com
Picture on cover:
Infant receives checkup at community health center (Puskesmas) in Sumedang, West Java. ProRep’s health policy community 
is working on health policy initiatives to formalize citizen participation and multi-stakeholder collaboration in monitoring the 
quality of health services. 
The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1. PMP design........................................................................................................1
2. ProRep Results Framework ...............................................................................2
3. Monitoring and Evaluation Design......................................................................4
4. Revisions to Results Framework and PMP Indicators over time ........................9
5. Updated performance data table......................................................................24
Appendix A: Summary of Comments from ProRep’s Mid-Term Evaluation..............35
Appendix B: Schedule of M&E Key Activities for Year 5 ..........................................38
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 1
Introduction
ProRep’s Performance Mangement Plan (PMP) has been updated twice in the life of the 
project. The first update was in response to (a) changes suggested in the project’s mid-term 
evaluation (MTE) in 2013, (b) USAID’s new 2014-2019 Country Development Cooperation 
Strategy (CDCS) and (c) the start of ProRep’s new “policy cluster,” program focus. Minor 
additional changes were made in 2015, as ProRep added, at USAID’s request, a new 
Democratic Rights and Governance Cluster. These adjustments, however, were close enough 
to ProRep’s original design that the PMP did not need to be completely restructured. Some 
additions to and expansion of the ProRep Results Framework were sufficient, in addition to 
changes to definitions of indicators. 
For ease of following the changes made to the originally approved PMP, sections 1 – 3 
include the language from our original PMP in plain text, with new language in this 
document in italics. 
- original Introduction begins -
This PMP (Performance Management Plan) presents an overview of the monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) functions supporting the work of ProRep. It includes indicators, measures 
of qualitative and quantitative achievement over the duration of the project, and data sources. 
It also establishes the role of Chemonics International (along with its M&E subcontractor, 
Social Impact) in gathering data and submitting performance reports. 
The PMP is an update of the version included in Chemonics’ original proposal for carrying 
out ProRep. It is based partly on the ProRep component assessments done in July 2011, and 
partly on program discussions with USAID that have helped clarify desired indicators and
reporting requirements.
1. PMP design
The PMP is designed to involve all ProRep’s technical team members and relevant project 
stakeholders. This design enables: 
Efficiency. Technical team members have first-hand knowledge of activities and immediate 
results in their areas of work, and are best suited to collect and verify basic PMP data in their 
respective technical areas. 
Ownership. Technical team members appreciate that the PMP system belongs to the entire 
project team. This will ensure that the information generated is relevant and consistent with 
the interests of the project.
Feedback. Having collected and analyzed M&E information, technical team members will 
have first-hand information on project progress and will be able to use M&E data to guide 
project implementation.
Capacity building. By being involved in M&E, ProRep team members will able to transfer 
skills to project participants, helping them build data spreadsheets, analyze data, and monitor 
results. 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 2
Adaptability. The PMP reflects project plans as currently conceived, but we have borne in 
mind that project tools and activities will likely continue to be refined during one year and 
indeed the life of the project. This being the case the PMP is a living document that will be 
updated as needed to reflect changes in ProRep strategy and project activities. 
A sense of importance. ProRep regards performance measurement as important. The PMP 
will give technical team members back-up support on data collection and quality analysis, 
and maintain auditable records of indicator progress and quality.
Full details of performance measurement (including scoring schemes or survey scales, for 
example) will be laid out in performance indicator reference sheets that will be completed 
during Quarter 2. These sheets spell out the precise definition of each indicator, the 
management utility of tracking the information, the unit of measure, the method of 
acquisition, the frequency of collection, the data source, baseline and target information, data 
analysis, data quality assessment plans, and who among the ProRep technical staff is 
responsible for collecting the data. 
2. ProRep Results Framework 
As a planning, communications and management tool, the ProRep Results Framework (RF) 
embodies the cause-effect relationships between ProRep’s Program Objective, Program 
Intermediate Results (PMIs) and Key Result Areas (KRAs). The Program Objective is at the 
pinnacle of the ProRep Results Framework; it is ‘Better informed and more representative 
legislative and policy-making processes’. ProRep’s Program Intermediate Results (PIRs), 
contribute to the realization of the Program Objective, and are three in number. They are:
 ‘Representative capacity of membership- and constituency-based CSOs strengthened’
 ‘Research institutions’ capacity to conduct and disseminate policy-relevant research 
and analysis on key policy and governance issues strengthened’
 ‘More effective, responsive and transparent legislative processes’
These three PIRs are, in turn, realized by means of results achieved in 11 key result areas 
(KRAs). Details of these 11 KRAs are given below, while the whole Results Framework are 
given in Exhibit A: Amended ProRep Results Framework, below.
Please see Table 1: Summary of Revions to ProRep Results Framework, for a summary of 
these changes, including the addition of a KRA, bringing the total KRAs to 12.
PIR 1: Representational capacity of membership and constituency-based CSOs
strengthened
Under PIR 1, ProRep is to strengthen the effectiveness of 16 to 20 CSOs with well-defined 
members and/or constituencies that aim to: 1) expand their membership/constituencies and/or 
2) better represent the views, interests and aspirations of their members/constituents to 
government at the national or regional level. 
PIR 1 will be achieved in three Key Result Areas (KRAs):
KRA 1.1: CSO Membership, constituencies and networks significantly expanded
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 3
KRA 1.2: Partner CSOs engaging more frequently and effectively with legislators and 
policymakers. 
KRA 1.3: Partner CSOs more frequently using media for advocacy and outreach
PIR 2: Research institutions’ capacity to conduct and disseminate policy 
research on key policy and governance issues strengthened
Under PIR 2, ProRep is to provide training, TA, grants and other forms of support to 15 to
20 research institutions (universities, think tanks or CSOs) to build their capacity to do 
timely, high quality and sustainable policy-relevant research and analysis and to effectively 
disseminate their findings to legislators, policymakers, the media and other stakeholders. 
PIR 2 will be achieved in three KRAs:
KRA 2.1: Improved institutional effectiveness and institutional policy research capabilities 
KRA 2.2:Increased volume and quality of policy research produced and disseminated
KRA 2.3: Institutional research more relevant to and having more influence on legislative 
policy making.
KRA 2.3 changed to Increased relevance of policymaking and oversight of research 
produced by Research Institutions. See Table 1 regarding the change to KRA 2.3.
PIR 3: More Effective, Responsive and Transparent Legislative Processes
(PIR 3 was changed to “More Effective, Responsive, and Transparent Legislative and 
Policymaking Processes).
Under PIR3, ProRep will support efforts to make the DPR (and possibly the DPD) more 
effective, responsive and transparent. This will be done by providing training, short- and 
long-term technical assistance, study tours and other support to various groups. 
PIR3 is divided into five KRAs:
KRA 3.1: DPR members more aware of and better able to represent constituency interests
KRA 3.2: More informed, efficient, and responsive lawmaking 
KRA 3.3: More effective and transparent budget analysis and oversight
KRA 3.4: DPR management and procedural reforms adopted and implemented
KRA 3.5: Policymakers and Other Actors Collaborate on Key Policy Issues
KRA 3.5 was added in 2014. In addition, with ProRep no longer providing parliamentary 
assistance after project year 3, targets for KRAs related to this program (KRAs 3.1, 3.2., 3.3., 
and 3.4) were changed to zero for Years 4 and 5. With this PIR’s broader focus, it covers
both the original – legislative – project work, and ProRep’s new policy work. Three 
performance indicators were added to help measure progress in this new KRA. See Table 2: 
Summary of Revisions to ProRep Performance Data Table.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 4
PIR 4: Assistance for special initiatives needed to protect or advance democratic
governance.
Legislative and policymaking processes are always somewhat unpredictable; inevitably there 
are unanticipated changes, problems and opportunities. Therefore, USAID needs to preserve 
a degree of flexibility and resources in order to be able to respond to new and changing 
needs. Under this PIR timely but typically short-term assistance will be provided to 
government agencies and independent bodies to address unanticipated needs and 
opportunities associated with protecting or advancing democratic governance. 
PIR 14will be achieved in one Key Result Area (KRA):
KRA 4.1: Indonesian efforts to address strategic needs and opportunities affecting 
democratic governance improved
3. Monitoring and Evaluation Design
3.1. Methodology, Analysis and Communication
Monitoring progress and evaluating results are key management functions in performance￾based project implementation. Performance monitoring will allow the ProRep team to 
determine whether or not an activity is making progress towards the intended results. The 
strength of ProRep’s M&E will lie in its ability to provide timely performance information 
that enables ProRep to manage for results and to improve project performance.
ProRep’s approach to monitoring and evaluation will focus on collecting information that can 
be corroborated and verified by documentation obtained from project participants and 
stakeholders. As noted earlier, the whole ProRep technical team will be involved, as the 
quality of data requires the input and work of not only the M&E officer, but also the 
component Specialists. This approach is reliable and cost-efficient since the component 
Specialists liaise regularly with project counterparts and make field visits to their locations. 
Therefore, they can collect data for analysis during their regular activities. 
Analysis and communication are important elements of performance management. The 
ProRep project team will not only collect performance and impact data; it will also add value 
to the raw data by analyzing the data and putting it in context, thus turning data into 
information. This transformation must then be communicated to have an impact. ProRep will 
communicate the information as appropriate to USAID, and (with USAID’s agreement) as 
appropriate to the Government of Indonesia (GOI), project participants, other stakeholders, 
and the public.
3.2. Indicators
The ProRep M & E officer will conduct the analysis of performance indicator data, provide 
the comprehensive coverage needed to review project progress, and also provide inputs for 
project management. Every quarter the PMP system will track two main types of 
performance indicators: output and outcome. Output indicators will track project activities as 
they take place, and will account for how project resources are spent. An example of an 
output indicator is the number of persons trained in a workshop. Outcome indicators will 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 5
account for the impact of project activities, measuring their effects or results and providing
feedback to managers so that they can identify areas where implementation strategies may 
need to be adjusted. An example of an outcome indicator is the quality of draft legislation as 
assessed by an expert in a case where the project had trained the legislative drafters.
Quantitative and qualitative indicators. Quantitative indicators will be used to record and 
report results where project outcomes and outputs are easily measurable in dimensions or 
amounts. These will be expressed in numeric values, either numbers or percentages. We have 
also included several qualitative indicators in order to convey more complex processes or 
concepts. This data will usually be measured through expert assessment and opinion. 
Disaggregation of data. Where possible, indicators will be disaggregated by gender and other 
factors as appropriate to specific indicators. 
Timing and duration. The ProRep M&E plan is for the full five-year duration of the project. 
At the end of each year, the M&E plan will be reviewed and adjustments made as needed for 
the following years. Any changes will be documented in ProRep’s M&E files. 
The table in Section 5 of this updated PMP details performance indicators in each PIR, with 
definition of indicator (including unit of measurement), data disaggregation, data source(s), 
method(s) and scope of collection, frequency of data collection, baseline(s) and designated 
targets for the 1st and 5th years.
As reference information, in the performance data table of this updated PMP we include an 
additional column with achievement information to date, based on original indicators for 
Years 1-3, and revised indicators for Year 4.
3.3. Baselines and Targets 
Initial baselines and targets for Year 1 and Year 5 have been identified for those indicators 
that are already supported by program-relevant information sufficient to allow such 
identification. During the coming months, ProRep will focus on further baseline data 
collection and verification, along with discussion of performance targets with USAID and 
ProRep partner organizations. 
Over the life of the project there have been changes regarding baselines, targets and to some 
indicator definitions, and these are noted in the Updated Performance Data Table. With 
regard to baselines, given that many indicators we are measuring were new (for example, 
ProRep partners were not producing research products for parliament – KRA 2.2.a), and the 
difficulty and expense of collecting some of this information (ProRep had virtually no access 
to the DPR during much of the first year of the project, for example) ProRep assumed a “0” 
baseline for indicators. 
As per the ProRep contract (p. 41) the project conducted a number of assessments at the 
start-up phase of the project which served to establish an initial baseline regarding the 
capacity and needs of the potential beneficiaries. In accordance with the original approved 
PMP the project also conducted a Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey of CSO 
partners, and subsequently conducted periodic assessments of supported partners to capture 
and assess organizational changes. 
Under PIR 3, above, we note that we added some indicators and stopped collecting 
information on others – corresponding with changes to project direction and focus. In 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 6
addition, following ProRep’s mid-term evaluation, and comments from evaluators that
Indonesia’s political situation, and the realization that effecting policy changes of any kind 
through the parliament was a much slower and more difficult process than USAID or the 
project implementers had realized, we changed the definition of some indicators (see 
Appendix A for the evaluator’s comments regarding project indicators). In addition, given 
that a great of deal ProRep’s work was with local-level CSOs which were attempting to help 
bring about policy change at the local level, we amended some indicators to capture local￾level changes as well as national. Please see Sections 4:Revisions to Results Framework and 
PMP Indicators over time, and 5: Updated performance data table, for detail. 
3.4. Roles and Responsibilities in Data Management
The ProRep M&E Specialist will take the lead in developing the system, using a participatory 
approach to ensure that all members of the technical team understand both the importance of 
and their role in contributing to performance-based management. As mentioned earlier, The 
PMP is designed to involve all technical team members and relevant project stakeholders.
3.4.1. Quality Reviews 
Technical team members are conducting initial quality reviews for various M&E data. Upon 
completion of the data entry spreadsheets, each technical team member concerned will 
examine the quantitative data to identify weaknesses in the data or errors such as logical 
inconsistency, out-of-range values, or significant departures from trends. Should any problem 
be identified, the component Specialist will be responsible for working with the M&E 
Specialist to verify data against original sources and if necessary cross-verify them against 
data from alternate sources, and also for identifying indicators and data collection methods 
that might replace those found to be unreliable. 
3.4.2. Data Sources and Collection Methods 
The M & E Specialist will obtain data on project indicators from a variety of sources in 
collaboration with the ProRep technical teams. Sources will include technical team members, 
CSOs, universities, think tanks, and DPR members and staff, as well as documents such as 
internal project records, R & A, legislation drafted and passed, DPR procedural manuals, and 
media reports. ProRep understands the importance of collecting both quantitative and 
qualitative data in order to capture the complexity of project outcomes. The specific data 
source for each indicator is identified in the indicator table.
Primary data from project records. Some of the indicators presented in this PMP directly 
measure outputs of project activities, so data for such activities (such as numbers trained) can 
easily be attained from project records. 
Secondary data from project partners or public records. Data collection on other project 
indicators requires more complex collaboration with project partners and participants, 
particularly the DPR. ProRep staff will work with these partners and participants to establish 
a means of regularly collecting this data, through performance measurement tools, 
instructions, and consultations, so as to serve our collective purposes for the duration of the 
project and beyond. 
Qualitative indicators. As mentioned, for some indicators we will use established experts. 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 7
Gender. In all possible and relevant instances, the PMP features collection, analysis and 
reporting of data disaggregated by gender. The M&E Specialist will ensure that project
indicators address gender differences where they exist, are free from underlying 
discriminatory assumptions, and where relevant, include indicators that measure differential 
impact on men and women. Service providers / grantees will also be trained to take gender 
considerations into account, such as with whom and under what circumstances women may 
speak freely when the collection method is an interview. 
3.4.3. Data Storage
We will create a database to track key legislative and policy reforms that will be used for 
M&E purposes. The technical teams will have primary responsibility for this database. The 
M & E Specialist will conduct regular spot checks for accuracy. In addition, ProRep will 
create a database giving information on grants, technical assistance, training, and other 
support given during project implementation.
3.5. Reporting and Review
ProRep will provide M&E updates in its quarterly reports to USAID. The reports will include 
a summary of activities undertaken to control, verify, and validate the M&E data being 
reported, as well as any anomalies discovered and the corrective measures taken to resolve 
them. These reports will also provide contextual analysis when factors beyond the project’s 
control affect M&E information. 
ProRep’s annual report to USAID will contain in-depth analysis of annual progress, an 
update of annual targets, discussions of progress and hurdles, and a presentation of success 
stories, lessons learned, and best practices. In addition to providing quantitative data, the 
technical staff will also provide written narratives covering major achievements during the 
reporting period and/or major obstacles hampering progress.
Success stories. ProRep will be looking out for success stories. Routine and special 
assessments of legislative and policy processes in Indonesia will be included as part of 
project reporting. As they take place they will be included in quarterly and annual reports. 
Project information will be available as requested to provide liaison support to USAID, 
including audio-visual presentations, speeches, talking points, and briefings.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 8
Exhibit A: Amended ProRep Results Framework 
Note: Revisions given in blue/lighter font.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE:
Better Informed and 
More Representative 
Legislative and 
Policymaking Processes
P.I.R 1
Representational 
Capacity of Membership 
and Constituency Based 
CSOs Strengthened
PIR 4
Assistance for Special 
Initiatives Needed to 
Protect or Advance 
Democratic Governance.
PIR 3
More Effective, Responsive and 
Transparent Legislative and 
Policymaking Processes
P.I.R 2
Research Institution Capacity to 
Conduct and Disseminate Policy￾Relevant Research and Analysis on 
Key Policy and Governance Issues 
Strengthened
KRA 1.1
CSO Membership, 
Constituencies and 
Networks Significantly 
Expanded
KRA 4.1
Indonesian Efforts to 
Address Strategic Needs 
and Opportunities 
Affecting democratic 
Governance Improved
KRA 3.1
DPR Members Better Represent 
Constituent Interests
KRA 2.1
Research Institutions Improve 
Institutional Effectiveness and 
Applied Policy Research and 
Analysis Capabilities
KRA 1.2
Partner CSOs Engage 
More Frequently and 
Effectively with 
Legislators and Policy 
Makers
KRA 3.4
DPR Management and Procedural 
Reforms Adopted and 
Implemented
KRA 3.2:
DPR Staff Research, Analysis and, 
Drafting Improved
KRA 2.2
Research Institutions Increase 
Volume and Quality of Policy￾Relevant Research and Analysis 
Produced and Disseminated
KRA 1.3
Partner CSOs More 
Frequently Use Media 
for Advocacy and 
Outreach
KRA 3.5
Policymakers and Other Actors 
Collaborate on Key Policy Issues
KRA 3.3
DPR Institutional Capacity to Do 
Budget Analysis and Oversight 
Strengthened
KRA 2.3
Increased Relevance to
Policymaking and oversight of 
Research Produced by Research
Institutions
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 9
4. Revisions to Results Framework and PMP Indicators over 
time
The two tables in this section summarize the changes to ProRep’s Results Framework, and 
PMP indicators. 
Table 1: Summary of Revisions to ProRep Results Framework
Original Modification Rationale
KRA 2.3
Increased Relevance to and 
Influence On Legislative Policy 
Making of Research Produced 
by Research Institutions
KRA 2.3
Increased Relevance to 
Policymaking or Oversight of 
Research Produced by Research 
Institutions
To capture the broader scope of 
our policy cluster program, not 
limited to legislative process. 
PIR 3
More Effective, Responsive and 
Transparent Legislative 
Processes
PIR 3
More Effective, Responsive and 
Transparent Legislative and 
Policymaking Processes
To capture the broader scope of 
our policy cluster program, not 
limited to legislative process. 
None KRA 3.5
Policymakers and Other Actors 
Collaborate on Key Policy 
Issues
To elaborate new indicators to 
measure progress in our new 
policy cluster approach.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 10
ProRep revised the PMP in response to feedback received in the mid-term evaluation, and the project’s change in scope (i.e. ending support to
the Indonesian legislature, and the shift to policy clusters). Table 2, below summarizes the revisions to the performance indicators data table and 
the rationale for these revisions.
Table 2: Summary of Revisions to ProRep Performance Data Table
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
PO.a. Definition: Definition: Definition: Modification #1
Installation of a new government
and parliament in 2014 is 
expected to make policy changes
more difficult (historically, 
Indonesian parliaments make 
very little policy change until later 
in their tenure).
Modification #2
The definition is revised to adjust 
to the new policy cluster 
approach, which focuses not 
solely on central government 
regulation and law but also focus 
on local government regulation.
Number of national bills, 
amendments or laws positively 
incorporating concepts or 
language recommended by one 
or more ProRep partner CSOs 
or CSo coalitions
Number of national or local bills,
amendments laws or policies
positively incorporating concepts or 
language recommended by one or 
more ProRep partner CSOs or CSO
coalitions Policies may include bills, 
amendments, laws, decrees, 
government and parliament 
regulations and procedures
Number of national or local bills,
amendments laws or policies
positively incorporating concepts or 
language recommended by one or 
more ProRep partner CSOs or CSO
coalitions Policies may include bills, 
amendments, laws, decrees, 
government and parliament 
regulations and procedures at the 
national or local/regional level.
Disaggregation: Disaggregation:
Bills, amendments or laws 
relevant to concern of a. gender 
b. disadvantaged groups
Woman focused
Data Source: Data Source:
Grantee reports; interviews with 
selected MPs or their staff
Grantee reports; interviews with 
selected MPs or their staff.
Also verified through response 
sheets from policymakers or 
reference to research in policy 
document.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 11
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Target Target
Yr 1: 2 
Yr 2: 2 
Yr 3: 2 
Yr 4: 2 
Yr 5: -
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 2
Yr 3: 2
Yr 4: 2
Yr 5: 2
PO.b. Definition Definition Modification #1
Installation of a new government
and parliament in 2014 is 
expected to make policy changes
more difficult.
Modification #2
Research group in each cluster 
will also focus on region/local 
government.
Number of national bills, 
amendments or laws 
incorporating concepts or 
language recommended by a 
participating university, think 
tank or CSO
Number of national bills, amendments,
laws or local government 
regulation/decree incorporating
concepts or language recommended
by a participating university, think tank
or CSO
Target: Target: Target
Cumulatively: 
Yr 1: 2 (Women-related: 1) 
Target to be determined based 
on year 1 data
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 1
Yr 3: 1
Yr 4: 1
Yr 5: 1
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 1
Yr 3: 1
Yr 4: 1
Yr 5: 7
PIR 1.a Definition: Definition: To expand the indicator definition 
to cover both membership-based 
organizations and constituent￾based organizations.
ProRep desk assessment of the 
extent to which partner CSOs 
use various methods of 
receiving information and/or 
opinions on 
issues from individual 
members. Methods may 
include Face-to-face meetings; 
the CSO’s website; social 
networking; and text 
ProRep desk assessment of the
extent to which partner CSOs use
various methods of receiving
information and/or opinions on
issues from individual members. For 
non- membership organizations, 
this will include collecting 
information from constituents.
Methods may include Face-to-face
meetings; the CSO’s website; social 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 12
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
messaging. networking; and text messaging.
Data source Data Source
ProRep will carry out a rapid 
assessment, utilizing a short 
checklist and based on data in 
the CSO KAP survey (Yr 1, 3 
and 5) and CSO reports
Grantee reports with documentation 
of methods used.
Frequency: Frequency: 
Bi-annual: Years 1, 3 and 5 Annual
Target Target
Yr 1: 2 
Yr 2: 2 
Yr 3: 3 
Yr 4: 3 
Yr 5: 2
To be determined based on the 
result analysis of KAP survey
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 2
Yr 3: 3
Yr 4: 3
Yr 5: 3
PIR 1.b Data source Data source Improvements in technology
make internet and SMS gateway
surveys possible and a cost 
effective option to gathering data.
Modification #1:
The percentage is per year, but 
an average during the project 
period.
Survey of CSO members 
(probability sample to margin of 
error of +/- 5%) 
Survey of CSO members via in￾person interviews, Internet and/or 
SMS gateway.
Frequency: Frequency:
Bi-annual: Years 1, 3 and 5 1 time during the life of project.
Target: Target:
Yr 1: 10% (women: 20%) Yrs. 1-5: 30% (women:25%)
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 13
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Yr 2: 20% (women: 25%) 
Yr 3: 30% (women: 25%) 
Yr 4: 35% (women: 30%) 
Yr 5: 40% (women: 35%)
It requires initial 
inputs/information of current 
practices which will be gathered 
by KAP.
KRA 1.1. Definition Definition: Modification #1
To expand the indicator definition 
to cover both membership-based 
organizations and constituent￾based organizations.
The policy cluster focus for 
ProRep’s Years 4 and 5 will result 
in decreased focus on 
membership expansion, with an
increased focus on achieving
policy improvements
Modification #2
Initially ProRep counted only 
membership-based CSOs and 
numbers were low because of 
most ProRep CSO partners we 
non-membership based 
With ProRep’s shift in focus to 
policy clusters in the 4th project 
year, project focus is less on 
expanding memberships and
more on building policy clusters 
Number of ProRep-supported 
CSOs experiencing an increase 
in membership of 10 % or more
Number of ProRep-supported CSOs
experiencing an increase in
membership of 3% or more, or with
increased numbers of
constituents.
For non-membership organizations
this must be demonstrated by an 
increase in number of documented
constituents (through a database,
for example) or in an increase in the
number of organizations
represented.
Data source Data Source
ProRep count based on data 
from KAP survey in years 1, 3 
and 5, and CSO reports in 
years 2 and 4.
Grantee reports with reference to 
member database
Target Target Target
Yr 1: 2 
Yr 2: 4 
Yr 3: 6 
Yr 4: 8 
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 4
Yr 3: 6
Yr 4: 2
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 4
Yr 3: 6
Yr 4: 2
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 14
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Yr 5: 10 Yr 5: 2 Yr 5: 3 and policy change. 
Consequently, targets for years 4 
& 5 are reduced.
KRA 1.2.a Definition Definition Installation of a new parliament in
2014 is expected to result in 
fewer opportunities for hearings
and other formal sessions.
Number of ProRep partner 
CSOs that report that their 
representatives have formally 
provided, during the reporting 
period, information or policy 
perspective to MPs or 
Parliament staff during 
committee hearings and other 
formal sessions addressing 
legislation, oversight or budget.
Number of ProRep partner CSOs that
report that their representatives have
provided, during the reporting period,
information or policy perspective to
MPs or Parliament staff, and 
representatives of government,
including at the local/regional level
addressing legislation, oversight or 
budget.
Disaggregation Disaggregation:
Number of organization 
participating in legislative 
proceedings
Number of organizations
Data Source Data Source
CSO grantee records MP or related policy makers 
response sheet
KRA 1.2.b Definition Definition Modification #2
New policy cluster approach will 
not focus solely on parliament
and will involve government 
representatives.
Installation of a new government
and parliament in 2014 is 
Number of written policy 
advocacy products submitted to 
MPs or staff by ProRep partner 
CSOs with content that is also 
found, in substance, in 
subsequent legislation or 
legislative, oversight or budget 
sessions or summaries. 
Legislative, oversight or budget 
Number of written policy advocacy
products submitted to MPs /staff or 
national/local government 
representatives by ProRep partner
CSOs with content that is also found,
in substance, in
subsequent legislation or legislative,
oversight or budget sessions or 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 15
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
response may include the 
defeat of content that is counter 
to CSO policy interests.
summaries. Legislative, oversight or
budget response may include the
defeat of content that is counter to
CSO policy interests.
expected to make policy changes
more difficult.
Target Target: Target Modification #1 reduced targets 
for years 4 & 5 because ProRep, 
which had focused on parliament, 
was no longer working with the 
institution. 
Modification #2 reflects the new 
policy cluster approach and 
changes the definition so that it 
includes national and local 
government representatives. 
Therefore, the year 5 target is 
increased. 
Yr 1: 2 
Yr 2: 3 
Yr 3: 5 
Yr 4: 6 
Yr 5: 8 
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 3
Yr 3: 5
Yr 4: 2
Yr 5: 2
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 3
Yr 3: 5
Yr 4: 2
Yr 5: 5
KRA 1.3.b Target Target: Target Modification #1
Achievement of year 2-4 exceed 
the target. ProRep cooperated 
with journalist partners with 
excellent access to the media (i.e. 
AJI, Seknas Fitra and IBC).
New policy cluster focus will 
involve substantive media 
engagement and outreach.
Targets for Years 4 and 5 have 
increased due to our ability to 
meet higher than expected 
targets in Years 1-3.
Yr 1: 3 (Women-related: 1) 
Yr 2: 5 (Women-related: 1) 
Yr 3: 7 (Women-related: 2) 
Yr 4: 9 (Women-related: 2)
Yr. 5 : 11 (Women-related: 3)
Yr 1: 3 (Women- related: 1)
Yr 2: 5 (Women- related: 1)
Yr 3: 7 (Women- related: 2)
Yr 4: 20 (Women- related: 3)
Yr. 5 : 20 (Women- related: 3).
Yr 1: 3 (Women- related: 1)
Yr 2: 5 (Women- related: 1)
Yr 3: 7 (Women- related: 2)
Yr 4: 20 (Women- related: 3)
Yr. 5 : 36 (Women- related: 3).
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 16
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Modification #2
Targets for Years 4 and 5 have 
increased due to our ability to 
meet higher than expected 
targets in Years 1-3. Also, our 
new policy cluster focus will 
involve substantive media 
engagement and outreach.
PIR 2.a Definition Definition Modification #1
It is more practical and cost 
effective to conduct this survey
one time during the project
period. On an ongoing basis, 
grantees provide ProRep with
“response sheets” documenting
policy makers responses to the 
research they provide.
Modification #2
It proved more practical and cost 
effective to conduct this survey
one time during the project
period. On an ongoing basis, 
grantees provide ProRep with
“response sheets” documenting
policy makers response to 
research provided.
The definition is revised to adjust 
to the new policy cluster 
approach, which targets not just 
parliament members and staff but 
also national and local 
government representatives.
Percent of surveyed MPs and 
Parliament staff who report they 
are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” 
with at least one product of at 
least one ProRep-supported 
research institution. 
Respondent ratings will be 
counted only when the 
respondent can identify or recall 
a particular research product or 
study.
[See KRA2.3.c for specification 
of universe of survey]
Percent of surveyed MPs/ Parliament
staff or national/local government 
representatives who report they are
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with at
least one product of at least one 
ProRep-supported research 
institution. Respondent ratings will
be counted only when the
respondent can identify or recall a
particular research product or study.
[See KRA 2.3.a for specification of
universe of survey].
Frequency Frequency:
Yrs 1, 3 and 5 1 time during the life of project.
Target Target
Yr 1: 10% 
Yr 2: 10% 
Yr 3: 10% 
Yr 4: 10% 
Yr 5: 10%
[Targets to be determined 
Years 1-5: 30%
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 17
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
based on Yr 1 data.]
KRA 2.1 Data source Data source Modification #1
Expanding data sources 
enables collection of additional
data.
The policy cluster focus for 
ProRep’s Years 4 and 5 will result
in a decreased focus on 
organizational capacity building,
and a greater focus on achieving
policy improvements.
Modification #2
The policy cluster focus for 
ProRep’s Years 4 and 5 will result
in a decreased focus on 
organizational capacity building 
and a greater emphasis on policy 
change.
Organizational Effectiveness 
Assessment
Organizational Effectiveness 
Assessment and Grantee reports
with documentation of new 
organizational activities/achie 
vements.
Target Target:
Yr 1: 3 
Yr 2: 6 
Yr 3: 5 
Yr 4: 9 
Yr 5:10
Yr 1: 3
Yr 2: 6
Yr 3: 5
Yr 4: 5
Yr 5: 3
KRA 2.2.a Definition Definition: Definition: Year 2 and 3 achievements 
exceed targets because some 
ProRep partners distributed 
research products to working 
groups, such as the women’s 
caucus or through several 
special committees on particular 
subjects.
New policy cluster approach will 
focus on parliament AND 
government representatives 
both national and local.
Number of copies (in hard-copy 
or electronic format) of research 
study products disseminated 
from ProRep partner research 
institutions to Parliament 
members or their staff
Number of copies (in hard- copy or 
electronic format) of research study
products disseminated from ProRep 
partner research institutions to 
Parliament members or their staff, and
representatives from government.
Number of copies (in hard- copy or 
electronic format) of research study
products disseminated from ProRep 
partner research institutions to 
Parliament members or their staff,
and representatives from government 
– including national and local 
government representatives.
KRA 2.2.b Definition Definition Definition Modification #1
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 18
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Number of target Parliament 
members and staff (e.g., 
members of selected 
commissions, BAKN, BALEG, 
etc.) who report they have 
received written research 
products from ProRep partner 
research institutions.
Number of target Parliament 
members and staff (e.g., members of
selected commissions, BAKN,
BALEG, etc.) or national and local 
government representatives who
report they have received written
research products from ProRep
partner research institutions
Achievement did not hit targets
because most ProRep partners
have never worked wth MPs. 
They had little background 
producing policy documents for 
parliament or interacting with 
MPs. 
New policy cluster approach will 
not focus solely on parliament
and will involve government 
representatives.
Modification #2
ProRep partners had difficulty 
reaching targets because the 
ProRep program provided their 
first support to work explicitly with 
MPs on policy issues. 
New policy cluster approach will 
not focus solely on parliament
and will involve government 
representatives either national or
local.
Data source Data source
ProRep survey of target 
Parliament members
ProRep survey of target Parliament 
members
Response sheets from policy
makers provided by grantees.
Target Target
Cumulatively: 
Yr 1: 50 
Yr 2: 80 
Yr 3: 110 
Yr 4: 140
Yr. 5: 184
Yr 1: 50
Yr 2: 80
Yr 3: 110
Yr 4: 20
Yr. 5: 10
KRA 2.3.a Data source Data Source New policy cluster approach will 
not focus solely on parliament
and will involve government 
representatives so targets for 
years 4 & 5 are lower
Survey of selected 
Parliament members
Response sheets from policy
makers provided by grantees.
Target Target
Yr 1: 15 
Yr 2: 15 
Yr 1: 15
Yr 2: 15
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 19
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Yr 3: 15 
Yr 4: 15 
Yr 5: 15
Yr 3: 15
Yr 4: 10
Yr 5: 5
PIR 3.a Target Target Modification #1
Installation of a new government
and parliament in 2014 is 
expected to make policy changes
more difficult.
Modification #2
In Years 4 and 5 ProRep will no
longer provide assistance to
parliament, and the installation of
a new government and parliament
in 2014 will mean fewer legislative 
amendments, so targets for
parliamentary achievements are 
reduced.
Yr 1: Deliberated: 2, Passed : 1 
Yr 2: Deliberated: 2, Passed: 1 
Yr 3: Deliberated: 3, Passed: 1 
Yr 4: Deliberated: 3, Passed: 2 
Yr 5: Deliberated: 2, Passed: 1
Yr 1: Deliberated:2, Passed: 1
Yr 2: Deliberated:2, Passed: 1
Yr 3: Deliberated:3, Passed: 1
Yr 4: Deliberated: 1, Passed: 0
Yr 5: Deliberated: 0, Passed: 0
See Rationale
KRA 3.1 Data source Data Source Modification #1
Projec achievements did not hit 
targets in early years as 
ProRep’s JABAT (parliamentary 
outreach program) began 
implementation later. 
In Years 4 and 5 ProRep will no
longer be providing direct 
assistance to parliament.
Modification #2
ProRep used JABAT reports for 
an accurate measure of 
consultations with constituents. 
Early targets were not reached 
DPR records, confirmed by 
ProRep contacts with a 
sample of DPR members/ 
staff
MP Response sheets/
Interviews
Media coverage
Target Target
Yr 1: 100 (By women: 50)
Yr 2: 100 (By women: 50)
Yr 3: 150 (By women: 75)
Yr 4: 200 (By women: 100)
Yr 5: 100 (By women: 50)
Yr 1: 100 (By women: 50)
Yr 2: 100 (By women: 50)
Yr 3: 150 (By women: 75)
Yr 4: 0 (By women: 0)
Yr 5: 0 (By women: 0).
See Rationale
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 20
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
because the JABAT program 
began during Year 2. The Year 3 
target was exceeded because of 
JABAT program success. 
ProRep program support to 
Parliament ends in year 4, so 
targets are reduced to 0.
KRA 3.2.a Target Target ProRep’s Mid-Term Evaluation 
(MTE) notes that targets were 
unrealistically high, noting that,
“The process of influencing 
Parliament takes much longer.”
Achieving changes in multiple 
formal laws takes longer than
the project period. Targets were 
reduced.
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 5
Yr 3: 8
Yr 4: 3
Yr 5: 2
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 5
Yr 3: 8
Yr 4: 1
Yr 5: 1
KRA 3.3.a Target Target ProRep support to the BAKN 
(public accounts committee) led 
to several oversight actions, so 
targets for Years 2 and 3 were 
exceeded. 
In Years 4 and 5 ProRep will no
longer be providing direct 
assistance to parliament, so 
targets are reduced to zero.
Yr 1: 1 (gender-relevant: 0)
Yr 2: 2 (gender relevant: 1)
Yr 3: 3 (gender relevant: 2)
Yr 4: 2 (gender relevant 1)
Yr 5: 2 (gender-relevant: 1)
Yr 1: 1 (gender- relevant: 0)
Yr 2: 2 (gender relevant: 1)
Yr 3: 3 (gender relevant: 2)
Yr 4: 0 (gender relevant 0)
Yr 5: 0 (gender- relevant: 0)
KRA 3.4 Definition Definition: In Years 4 and 5 ProRep will no
longer be providing direct 
assistance to parliament , so 
targets are reduced to zero.
Number of DPR procedural 
reforms proposed, passed and 
implemented. A reform must be 
accompanied by some 
evidence of implementation in 
order to be counted.
Institutional reforms including
Standard Operating Procedures, 
internal rules and procedure in
DPR.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 21
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
Target Target
Yr 1: Deliberated: 1, Passed: 1 
Yr 2: Deliberated: 1, Passed: 1 
Yr 3: Deliberated: 2, Passed: 2 
Yr 4: Deliberated: 1, Passed: 1 
Yr 5: Deliberated: 1, Passed: 1
Yr 1: Deliberated: 1, Passed : 1
Yr 2: Deliberated: 1, Passed: 1
Yr 3: Deliberated: 2, Passed: 2
Yr 4: Deliberated: 0, Passed: 0
Yr 5: Deliberated: 0, Passed: 0
KRA 3.5.a Indicator: Modification #1
Adding new indicators of multi￾stakeholder forum due to policy 
cluster approach
Modification #2
Target of achievements increased 
with the addition of democratic 
rights as a policy cluster.
KRA.3.5.a Number of multi￾stakeholder forums convened with
ProRep support to discuss key policy
issues.
Definition
Number of forums bringing together 
at least three of the following
stakeholders to discuss issues
related to identified policy clusters:
CSOs, research organizations, 
MPS and MP staff. constituents
Number of forums bringing together 
at least three of the following
stakeholders to discuss issues
related to identified policy clusters: 
CSOs, research organizations, 
policymakers and constituents.
Data Source 
Documentation of meetings which may 
include photographs or press reports.
Frequency:
Annual
Target Target
Yr.4: 6
Yr.5: 10
Yr.4: 6
Yr.5: 14
KRA 3.5.b Indicator: Modification #1
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 22
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
KRA.3.5.b Number of multi￾stakeholder forums convened with 
ProRep support that develop formal 
policy recommendations.
Adding new indicators of multi￾stakeholder forum due to policy 
cluster approach.
Definition
Number of multi-stakeholder forums 
(defined in KRA 3.5.a) that create 
formal, written recommendations on 
key policy changes or policies to be 
addressed.
Data Source:
Written policy recommendation
Frequency
Annual
Target
Yr.4: 0
Yr.5: 8
Yr.4: 0
Yr.5: 8
KRA 3.5.c Indicator:
Modification #1
Adding new indicators of multi￾stakeholder forums with the new 
policy cluster approach
Modification #2
KRA.3.5.c Number of multi￾stakeholder forums convened with
ProRep support that develop formal 
action
plans for influencing policy.
Definition
Number of multi-stakeholder forums 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 23
Indicator Original Modification #1 (August 2014) Modification #2 (April 2015) Rationale
(defined in KRA 3.5.a) that create 
formal, written action plans for 
addressing policy change in key policy 
cluster areas.
Achievement targets increased 
with the addition of democratic 
rights as a policy cluster.
Data Source:
Written action plans
Frequency
Annual
Target Target
Yr.4: 0
Yr.5: 4
Yr.4: 0
Yr.5: 5
KRA 4.1 Indicator Indicator: Modification #1
JABAT contributes a large
number of achievements since 
we counted each MP/ grantee as 
an achievement by considering 
different method and approach 
that used by MP/grantee in 
engaging with their 
consitituents/members
Several different JABAT activities 
during years 2 & 3 contributed to 
the project exceeding year 2 and 3 
targets. 
Number of special initiatives 
undertaken by USAID through 
ProRep that result in significant
policy improvements or reform.
KRA.4.1. Number of special initiatives 
undertaken by USAID through ProRep
Definition Definition:
Number of initiatives 
undertaken whose aims are 
achieved as agreed and defined 
in consultation with USAID
Number of initiatives undertaken 
by USAID to respond flexibly 
and rapidly to address other 
unanticipated needs and 
opportunities pertaining to the 
protection and advancement of 
democratic governance in 
Indonesia.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 24
5. Updated performance data table
- Language from 2014 revision begins –
The PMP year definitions presented below are aligned with the Federal Fiscal Year and ProRep’s annual reports to date. To cover the expected 
five calendar years of the project, PMP Year one covers a six month period, and PMP Year five covers 18 months. Therefore, to adjust the PMP 
to fit the program approach in Year 5, ProRep has slightly revised the following parts of PMP. Table 4 below presents the updated performance 
data table for ProRep Year 5. 
Some of the indicators have been revised to fit with ProRep’s new focus from components to clusters. In addition, since the parliament is no 
longer the focus of ProRep, indicators under Component 3 will also have a target of “zero”. As ProRep has broadened the targeted stakeholders, 
the definitions and related notes for select indicators have been slightly revised to accommodate this broadened set of stakeholders. The rationale 
for each revised indicator is provided in the notes section of the indicator table. As noted in Section 3.3, baselines are considered to be ‘0.’ 
ProRep Performance Management Plan Years:
Year 1: April 19, 2011 – September 30, 2011
Year 2: October 1, 2011 – September 30, 2012
Year 3: October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013
Year 4: October 1, 2013 – September 30, 2014
Year 5: October 1, 2014 – April 18, 2016
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 25
Perrmance
Indicator
Definition of Indicator 
(including unit of 
measurement)
Disaggregation
(s)
Data Source(s), 
Method(s) and 
Scope of 
Collection
Frequency 
of Data 
Collection
Baseline(s) Targets
(Yr 1; Yr 5)
Achievement 
(orig. indicator Ys. 
1-3 & revised 
Indicators Ys. 4-5
Notes
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE: BETTER INFORMED AND MORE REPRESENTATIVE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICYMAKING PROCESSES
PO.a. Number of
laws, legislative 
amendments or 
Parliamentary 
oversight 
proceedings 
influenced by 
CSO advocacy
Number of national or local bills,
amendments laws or policies
positively incorporating concepts
or language recommended by 
one or more ProRep partner 
CSOs or CSO coalitions Policies
may include bills, amendments,
laws, decrees, government and
parliament regulations and
procedures at the national or 
local/regional level.
Women-focused Grantee reports, 
interviews with 
selected MPs or 
their staff, 
response sheets
from policymakers
or reference to 
research in policy 
documents
Annually Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 1 
Assessment, 
KAP Survey, and 
subsequent 
assessments of 
competence
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 2
Yr 3: 2
Yr 4: 2
Yr 5: 2
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 1 of 2
 Wf – 0
Yr 3 : 2 of 2 Wf-1Yr 4: 
2 of 2Wf-1
The definition is revised to 
adjust to the new policy 
cluster approach, which 
focuses not only on central 
government regulation, laws 
and policies, but also 
focuses on local 
government policies.
PO.b. Number of
bills, amendments
or laws influenced 
by research and 
analysis provided
by a supported 
research 
institution
Number of national bills, 
amendments, laws or local 
government regulation/decree 
incorporating concepts or 
language recommended by a 
participating university, think 
tank or CSO
Laws relevant to 
concerns of :
a) Gender
b) Disadvantaged
group
Grantee reports
Survey of selected 
Parliament 
members and
staff
Legislation for 
verification of 
grantee reports
Quarterly Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 2 
Assessment
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 1
Yr 3: 1
Yr 4: 1
Yr 5: 7
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 1
Yr 3: 1
Yr 4: 1
Research group in each 
cluster will also focus on 
region/local government. 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 26
PIR 1: REPRESENTATIONAL CAPACITY OF MEMBERSHIP- AND CONSTITUENCY-BASED CSOS STRENGTHENED
PIR1.a. Extent
of CSO use of 
diverse 
mechanisms to 
receive
information and 
opinions from 
their members
ProRep desk assessment of the
extent to which partner CSOs
use various methods of 
receiving information and/or 
opinions on issues from 
individual members. For non￾membership organizations, this
will include collecting 
information from constituents.
Methods may include Face-to￾face meetings; the CSO’s
website; social networking; and
text messaging.
Number of new 
mechanism used
on selected
issues and issue 
orientation of : 
(a) women (b) 
disadvantaged 
groups
Grantee reports
with 
documentation 
of methods 
used.
Annual Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 1 
Assessment, 
KAP Survey, and 
subsequent 
assessments of 
competence
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 2
Yr 3: 3
Yr 4: 3
Yr 5: 3
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 2 of 2 (1 wf-1
Yr 3 : 3 of 3 (1 Wf -
1
Yr 4: 3 of 3
Wf-1
PIR1.b Percent of
CSO
members and 
constituents who 
feel their 
interests have 
been effectively 
advanced by the 
CSO
Percent of respondents to a 
survey of individual
CSOmembers and constituent
who indicate that CSO
promotion of their interests on
one or more key issues has
been
“effective” or “very effective.”
Gender;
disadvantaged
groups
Survey of CSO 
members via in￾person 
interviews, or 
Internet and/or 
SMS gateway 
interviews.
1 time during
the life of 
project.
Zero baseline Yrs. 1-5:
30% 
(women:
25%)
SPPN Sergai: >80% 
YSKK: > 85% 
SPI Mamuju: <30%
InProSula: 79 %
KRA 1.1: CSO Members, Constituencies and Networks Significantly Expanded
KRA1.1. Number
of CSOs with 
significantly 
expanded 
membership
Number of ProRep-supported 
CSOs experiencing an increase
in membership of 3% or more,
or with increased numbers of
constituents. For non￾membership organizations this
must be demonstrated by an 
increase in number of 
documented constituents 
(through a database, for 
example) or in an increase in
the number of organizations
represented.
Number of 
organizations
Grantee reports
referring to 
member 
databases and 
numbers of 
constituents
Annually Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 1 
Assessment, 
KAP Survey, and 
subsequent 
assessments of 
competence
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 4
Yr 3: 6
Yr 4: 2
Yr 5: 3
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 2 of 4
Yr 3 : 5 of 6
Yr Yr 4: 6 of 2
Initially ProRep counted only 
membership-based CSOs 
and numbers were low 
because of most ProRep 
CSO partners were non￾membership based.
With ProRep’s shift in focus 
to policy clusters in the 4th
project year, project focus is 
less on expanding 
memberships and more on 
building policy clusters and 
policy change. 
Consequently, targets for 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 27
years 4 & 5 are reduced. 
KRA 1.2: Partner CSOs Engage More Frequently and Effectively with Legislators and Policy-makers
KRA1.2.a. 
Number of 
ProRep￾supported CSOs
that participate in 
legislative 
proceedings
Number of ProRep partner 
CSOs that report that their 
representatives have, during 
the reporting period, provided 
information or policy 
perspective to MPs or 
Parliament staff, and 
representatives of government -
including at the local/regional
level - addressing legislation,
oversight or budget.
Number of 
organizations
CSO grantee 
records or MP or 
related policy 
maker response 
sheets
Quarterly Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 1 
Assessment, 
KAP Survey, and 
subsequent 
assessments of 
competence
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 4
Yr 3: 6
Yr 4: 8
Yr 5: 10
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 4 of 4
Yr 3 : 6 of 6
Yr 4: 8 of 8
KRA 1.2.b. 
Number of policy
briefs brought to 
Parliament by 
CSOs and 
substantively 
reflected in 
responsive 
legislation, 
oversight or 
budget 
proceedings
Number of written policy 
advocacy products submitted 
to MPs /staff or national/local 
government representatives by
ProRep partner CSOs with
content that is also found, in
substance, in subsequent 
legislation or legislative,
oversight or budget sessions
or summaries. Legislative,
oversight or budget response
may include the defeat of
content that is counter to CSO
policy interests.
Issue focus of 
policy briefs:
gender issues; 
issues of concern
to other 
disadvantaged 
groups
CSO activity 
records; content 
analysis of policy
briefs, draft
legislation and
oversight and
budget 
proceedings; 
interviews with 
MPs and MP and
CSO staff
Quarterly Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 1 
Assessment, 
KAP Survey, and 
subsequent 
assessments of 
competence
Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 3
Yr 3: 5
Yr 4: 2
Yr 5: 5
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 2 of 3
Yr 3 : 9 of 5
Yr 4: 2 of 2
Lower targets for years 4 and 
5 reflect new policy cluster 
approach, which focuses not 
solely on parliament but will 
also include national and 
local government 
representatives. In addition, 
Installation of a new 
government and parliament
in 2014 is expected to reduce 
numbers of policy changes
those years. 
KRA 1.3: Partner CSOs More Frequently Use Media for Advocacy and Outreach
KRA 1.3.b. 
Number of times 
CSO advocacy 
positions are 
featured in media
Mass media; social network 
media; traditional media
a) Type of 
issue
b) Number of 
times advocacy 
are featured in
media
Contracted 
media analysis 
firm compiles 
media records, 
clippings, etc. 
Items may be 
found in 
products of 
mass media as 
well as
traditional
Quarterly Zero baseline
Informed by 
Comp 1 
Assessment, 
KAP Survey, and 
subsequent 
assessments of 
competence
Yr 1: 3 
(Women￾related: 1)
Yr 2: 5 
(Women￾related: 1)
Yr 3: 7 
(Women￾related: 2)
Yr 4: 20 
Yr 1: 0
Yr 2 : 55 of 5
Yr 3 : 72 of 7
Yr 4 : 68 of 9
Achievements for Years 2-
4 exceed targets because 
a number of ProRep either 
include journalists (such as 
AJI – the Indonesian 
Association of Independent 
Journalists) or work closely 
with journalists, such as 
Seknas Fitra and IBC.
Targets for Years 4 and 5 
have increased due to our 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 28
media.
Partner CSOs 
will assist in 
identifying 
source material.
(Women￾relate: 3)
Yr. 5 : 36 
(Women￾related: 3).
ability to meet higher than
expected targets in Years
1-3. Also, our new policy
cluster focus will involve
substantive media
engagement and outreach.
PIR 2: RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS’ CAPACITY TO CONDUCT AND DISSEMINATE POLICY RESEARCH ON KEY POLICY AND GOVERNANCE ISSUES STRENGTHENED
PIR2.a. Level of 
selected MP or 
Parliament staff 
satisfaction with 
policy research
Percent of surveyed MPs/
Parliament staff or 
national/local government 
representatives who report 
they are “satisfied” or “very 
satisfied” with at least one 
product of at least one 
ProRep-supported research 
institution. Respondent 
ratings will be counted only 
when the respondent can 
identify or recall a particular 
research product or study.
[See KRA 2.3.a for 
specification of universe of 
survey].
G Gender Survey of MP 
and MP staff 
satisfaction with 
Qstar and long
term grantee 
products
1 time during
the life of 
project.
Zero baseline Yrs 1-5: 30% Data collection 
ongoing
It proved more practical and
cost effective to conduct this
survey one time during the
project period. On an
ongoing basis, grantees
provide ProRep with
“response sheets” 
documenting policy makers
response to research
provided.
The definition is revised to 
adjust to the new policy
cluster approach, which 
targets not solely the 
parliament member and staff 
but also national and local 
government representatives.
KRA 2.1: Research Institutions’ Effectiveness and Policy Research Capabilities Improved
KRA 2.1.a.
Number of 
organizations in
key areas 
achieve 
organizational 
improvements
Number of organizations with 
qualitative improvement in 
development (including policy 
research capabilities), 
operations and financial 
management capacity
Number of
Organization
Organizational 
Effectiveness 
Assessment 
and Grantee 
reports
documenting 
new
organizational 
improvements
Annually Zero baseline
Informed by 
Component 2 
assessment
Yr 1: 3
Yr 2: 6
Yr 3: 5
Yr 4: 5
Yr 5: 3
Yr 1 : 0 of 3
Yr 2 : 3 of 6
Yr 3 : 5 of 5
Yr 4: 5 of 5
The policy cluster focus for 
ProRep’s Years 4 and 5 will 
result in a decreased focus
on organizational capacity 
building and a greater 
emphasis on policy change
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 29
KRA 2.2: Quality, Volume and Dissemination of Research Institutions’ Policy Research Increased
KRA 2.2.a. 
Number of 
copies of written
research 
products 
disseminated to 
Parliament 
members and 
policy makers
Number of copies (in hard￾copy or electronic format) of 
research study products 
disseminated from ProRep 
partner research institutions to 
Parliament members or their 
staff, and representatives from
government – including 
national and local government 
representatives.
(a) Policy theme of
document content;
(b) Type of 
product;
(c) Institutional 
source;
(d) Recipient 
(DPR Member or 
other)
DPR research 
institution 
partner reports; 
DPR research 
institution 
partner reports;
verified by spot￾check survey of 
a sample of 
intended 
recipient 
Parliament 
members
Annual Zero baseline
Informed by 
Component 2 
assessment
Yr 1: 8 
(Women￾related: 3)
Yr 2: 6 
(Women￾related: 2) 
Yr 3: 12 
(Women￾related: 4) 
Yr 4: 6 
(Women￾related: 2)
Yr. 5 : 12 
(Women￾related: 4).
Yr 1 : 0 of 8
Yr 2 : 37 of 6
Yr 3 : 29 of 12
Yr 4: TBD
Year 2 and 3 achievements 
exceed targets because 
some ProRep partners 
distributed research 
products to working 
groups, such as the 
women’s caucus or through 
several special committee 
on particular subjects.
New policy cluster
approach will focus on
parliament AND 
government
representatives either 
national or local.
KRA2.2.b. 
Number of 
target 
Parliament 
Members and 
staff who report
receipt of written 
research
products and/ or
verbal 
presentation
from research 
institutions.
Number of target Parliament 
members and staff (e.g., 
members of selected 
commissions, BAKN, BALEG, 
etc.) or national and local 
government representatives
who report they have received
written research products from
ProRep partner research
institutions
(a) Policy theme 
of document 
content;
(b) Type of 
product (full 
report or other);
(c) Recipient (DPR
Member or other)
ProRep survey 
of target 
Parliament
members and 
response sheets
from policy
makers provided
by grantees.
Annual Zero baseline Yr 1: 50
Yr 2: 80
Yr 3: 110
Yr 4: 20
Yr. 5: 10
Yr 1: 0 of 50
Yr 2: 37 of 80
Yr 3: 29 of 110
Yr 4: 20 of 20
ProRep partners had 
difficulty reaching targets 
because the ProRep 
program provided their first 
support to work explicitly 
with MPs on policy issues. 
New policy cluster 
approach will not focus 
solely on parliament and 
will involve government 
representatives either 
national or local.
KRA 2.3: Research Institutions' Research More Relevant to, and Having More Influence on, Legislative Policymaking
KRA 2.3.a. 
Number of 
Parliament 
members 
reporting use of 
products of 
Number of selected 
Parliament members (or their 
staff) who report that they 
have used one or more 
products of at least one 
ProRep-supported research 
(a) Policy theme 
of document 
content;
(b) Type of 
product (full 
Grantee reports, 
surveys of MPs, 
and response 
sheets from MPs 
and staff
Yrs 1, 3 and 5 Zero baseline Yr 1: 15
Yr 2: 15
Yr 3: 15
Yr 4: 10
Yr 1 : 0 of 15
Yr 2 : 18 of 15
Yr 3 : 23 of 15
Yr 4: 23 of 10
New policy cluster 
approach will not focus 
solely on parliament and 
will involve government 
representatives, so targets 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 30
research 
institutions
institution in the last year.
Selected Parliament members 
include members active in 
issues relevant to research 
conducted by partner 
institutions (e.g., members of 
BALEG, BAKN, etc.).
report or other);
(c) Recipient (DPR
Member or other)
Yr 5: 5 for Years 4 & 5 are lower.
PIR 3: MORE EFFECTIVE, RESPONSIVE AND TRANSPARENT LEGISLATIVE PROCESSES
PIR3.a. Number 
of pieces of 
legislation 
positively 
affecting 
democratic 
governance 
deliberated and 
passed
Number of Parliamentary bills 
and amendments deliberated 
and passed that positively 
affect democratic governance 
(for example, 
bills/amendments on the 
election law)
Bills or amend￾ments 
deliberated 
versus passed
Parliament 
records
Annual Zero baseline Yr 1:
Deliberated:2
Passed: 1
Yr 2:
Deliberated:2
Passed: 1
Yr 3:
Deliberated: 3
Passed: 1
Yr 4:
Deliberated:
1
Passed: 0
Yr 5:
Deliberated:
0
Passed: 0
Yr 1:
Deliberated:0
Passed: 0
Yr 2:
Deliberated:1
Passed: 1
Yr 3:
Deliberated: 2
Passed: 1
Yr 4:
Deliberated: 1
Passed: 0
Targets for Years 4 and 5 
are lower because ProRep 
has ended its program focus 
on the parliament. In 
addition, Installation of a new 
government and parliament
in 2014 is expected to make
policy changes more difficult.
KRA 3.1: DPR Members More Aware of and Better Able to Represent Constituent Interests
KRA3.1.a. 
Number of 
consultations 
with 
Number of face-to-face 
meetings, phone calls, or text 
messages held between 
ProRep-engaged DPR 
Gender of MP MP Response 
sheets/
Interviews
Annual Zero baseline
Infomred by 
Yr 1: 100
(By women:
50)
Yr 2: 100
Yr 1: 0 of 3
Yr 2: 37 of 100
Yr 3: 161 of 150
ProRep used JABAT 
reports for an accurate 
measure of consultations 
with constituents. Early 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 31
constituents
held by
ProRep￾engaged DPR 
members
members and their 
constituents
Media 
coverage
JABAT program 
reports
Component 3 
assessment
(By women:
50)
Yr 3: 150
(By women:
75)
Yr 4: 0 (By
women: 0)
Yr 5: 0 (By 
women: 0).
targets were not reached 
because the JABAT 
program began during Year 
2. Year 3 target was 
exceeded because of 
JABAT program success. 
ProRep program support to 
Parliament ends in Year 4, 
so targets are reduced to 0.
KRA 3.2: More informed, efficient and responsive lawmaking
KRA 3.2.a. 
Linkages of 
ProRep￾supported 
legislative 
amendments to 
the amendment 
process
Number of identified paths of 
influence tracked to legislative 
amendments. A linkage is 
counted for each of the 
following:
When a ProRep-proposed 
amendment or change to 
budget is discussed in 
committee; appears on a 
committee agenda; discussed 
in committee oversight 
hearings.
None DPR records; 
reports of 
ProRep
grantees
across
components
Annual Zero baseline Yr 1: 2
Yr 2: 5
Yr 3: 8
Yr 4: 1
Yr 5: 1
Yr 1 : 0 of 2
Yr 2 : 2 of 5
Yr 3 : 1 of 8
ProRep’s Mid-Term 
Evaluation (MTE) notes 
that targets were 
unrealistically high, noting 
that, “The process of
influencing Parliament
takes much longer.”
Achieving changes in
multiple formal laws takes
longer than the project
period.
In Years 4 and 5 ProRep 
will no longer be providing
direct assistance to
parliament, and the 
installation of a new 
government and parliament
in 2014 will mean fewer 
legislative amendments, so 
targets are reduced.
KRA 3.3: More effective and transparent budgetary analysis and oversight
KRA3.3.a. 
Number of U.S.-
assisted actions 
contributing to 
Number of DPR actions
(including issuing reports) 
Number of DPR actions
(including issuing reports)
Gender 
relevance of 
actions
DPR
records, 
supplement
ed by
Annual Zero baseline Yr 1: 1 
(gender￾relevant:
Yr 1 : 0 of 1
Yr 2 : 5 of 2
ProRep support to the 
BAKN (public accounts 
committee) led to several 
oversight actions, so targets 
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 32
better budget or 
program 
oversight 
undertaken by 
the DPR
contributing to better budget or 
program oversight
selected 
ProRep 
interviews
Infomred by 
Component 3 
assessment
0)
Yr 2: 2 
(gender 
relevant:
1)
Yr 3: 3 
(gender 
relevant:
2)
Yr 4: 0 
(gender 
relevant 
0)
Yr 5: 0 
(gender￾relevant: 0)
Yr 3 : 9 of 3 for Years 2 and 3 were 
exceeded. 
In Years 4 and 5 ProRep 
will no longer be providing
direct assistance to
parliament, so targets are 
reduced to zero.
KRA 3.4: DPR Management and Procedural Reforms Adopted and Implemented
KRA3.4.a. 
Number of DPR 
institutional 
reforms 
proposed, 
passed and 
implemented.
Institutional reforms including
Standard Operating Procedures, 
internal rules and procedure in
DPR.
Reforms 
deliberated 
versus passed
DPR
records, 
supplement
ed by
selected 
ProRep 
interviews
Annual Zero baseline
Infomred by 
Component 3 
assessment
Yr 1:
Deliberated :
1
Passed : 1
Yr 2:
Deliberated: 1
Passed: 1
Yr 3:
Deliberated: 2
Passed: 2
Yr 4:
Deliberated: 0
Passed: 0
Yr 5:
Yr 1:
Deliberated : 1
Passed : 1
Yr 2:
Deliberated: 2
Passed: 1
Yr 3:
Deliberated: 4
Passed: 2
Yr 4:
Deliberated: 2
Passed: 0
In Years 4 and 5 ProRep 
will no longer be providing
direct assistance to
parliament, so targets are 
reduced to zero.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 33
Deliberated:0
Passed: 0
KRA 3.5: Policy Makers and Other Actors Collaborate on Key Policy Issues
KRA.3.5.a 
Number of 
multi￾stakeholder 
forums 
convened with
ProRep
support to
discuss key 
policy issues.
Number of forums bringing 
together at least three of the 
following stakeholders to 
discuss issues related to 
identified policy clusters:
CSOs, research organizations, 
policy makers, constituents.
Documentati
on of
meetings 
which may 
include 
photographs
or press
reports
Annual Zero baseline Yr.4: 6
Yr.5: 14
Yr 4: 4
Yr. 5 TBD
New indicator with addition 
of policy cluster program in 
2014 and targets adjusted 
with with the addition of 
democratic rights as policy 
cluster.
KRA.3.5.b 
Number of 
multi￾stakeholder 
forums 
convened with
ProRep
support that
develop formal
policy
recommendatio
ns.
Number of multi-stakeholder 
forums (defined in KRA 3.5.a) 
that create formal, written 
recommendations on key policy
changes or policies to be
addressed.
Written
policy 
recommend
ation
Annual Zero baseline Yr.4: 0
Yr.5: 8
Yr 4: 0
Yr. 5: TBD
New indicator with addition 
of policy cluster program in 
2014.
KRA.3.5.c 
Number of 
multi￾stakeholder 
forums 
convened with
ProRep support 
that develop 
formal action
plans for 
influencing 
policy.
Number of multi-stakeholder 
forums (defined in KRA 3.5.a) 
that create formal, written action
plans for addressing policy
change in key policy cluster
areas.
Written
action plans
Annual Zero baseline Yr.4: 0
Yr.5: 5
Yr 4: 0
Yr. 5: TBD
New indicator with addition 
of policy cluster program in 
2014 and targets adjusted 
with with the addition of 
democratic rights as policy 
cluster.
PROREP PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) – REVISED JUNE 2015 34
PIR 4: ASSISTANCE FOR SPECIAL INITIATIVES NEEDED TO PROTECT OR ADVANCE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE
KRA 4.1. Indonesian Efforts to Address Strategic needs and Opportunities Affecting Democratic Governance Improved
KRA.4.1. 
Number of 
special 
initiatives 
undertaken by 
USAID through 
ProRep
Number of initiatives 
undertaken by USAID to 
respond flexibly and rapidly 
to address other 
unanticipated needs and 
opportunities pertaining to 
the protection and 
advancement of democratic 
governance in Indonesia.
a. Project 
component
b. Number of 
organizations
Contractor 
report
Quarterly Zero baseline Yr 1: 4
Yr 2: 5
Yr.3: 4
Yr.4: 5
Yr.5: 5
Yr 1: 0
Yr 2: 10 
Yr.3: 22 
Yr.4: 9 
Several different JABAT 
activities during Years 2 & 3 
contributed to the project 
exceeding Year 2 and 3 
targets. 
ProRep PMP 35
Appendix A: Summary of Comments from ProRep’s Mid-Term 
Evaluation
In accordance with contract requirements, a mid-term evaluation of ProRep was conducted in 
April 2013. The objective of the evaluation was to identify which elements of the project 
were having impacts, which were not, and which aspects of the project design might need to 
be adjusted. The midterm evaluation provided feedback on M&E indicators and targets. The 
tables below summarize the evaluators’ comments that were considered when revising the 
PMP.
Table 3a: Summary of comments on Project-level Indicators
Indicator 
Number
Original Indicator Notes
PO a. Number of laws, legislative amendments or 
Parliamentary oversight proceedings influenced 
by CSO advocacy
Indicator needs revising. 
The process of influencing Parliament 
takes much longer
PO b. Number of bills, amendments or laws influenced 
by research and analysis provided by a 
supported research institution
Indicator needs revising. 
The process of influencing Parliament 
takes much longer
Table 3b: Summary of comments on Component 1 Civil Society Indicators 
PIR. I a. Extent of CSOs use of diverse mechanisms to 
receive information and opinions from their 
members
Indicator needs revising
Diverse mechanisms are used to provide 
information to a wider audience, not all of 
whom are their members.
PIR. 1 b. Percent of CSO members and constituents who 
feel that their interests have been effectively 
advanced by the CSO
This information was intended to be the 
result of a survey, but no survey has yet 
been done
KRA 1.1.b Number of CSOs experiencing with significantly 
expanded membership 
Indicator needs revising
Many CSOs do not have members in a 
formal sense. They have a combination of 
alliances to networks, alliances to other 
CSOs, and beneficiaries
KRA 1.2.a Number of ProRep supported CSOs that 
participate in legislative proceedings
Indicator needs revising Making 
representation to MPs (which is reported 
by ProRep) is valuable, but is not the same 
as participating in formal legislative 
proceedings
KRA.1.2.b Number of policy briefs brought to Parliament 
by CSOs and substantively reflected in 
responsive legislation, oversight or budget 
proceedings
CSOs have usually only been able to bring 
issues to the attention of MPs in public 
discussions
KRA 1.3.b Number of times CSO advocacy positions are 
featured in the media
39 were for AJI. Women related also 
relates to issues important to women – in 
this case School Operational Fund
Table 3c: Summary of comments on Component 2 Research Institution Indicators 
Indicator 
Number
Indicator Notes
PIR 2.a. PIR2.a. Level of selected MP or Parliament To be collected through a survey with 
ProRep PMP 36
staff satisfaction with policy research members of BALEG, BANGGAR, and 
Komisi
KRA 2.1.a Number of organizations in key areas 
achieve organizational improvements
Supposed to come from an 
Organizational Effectiveness 
Assessment
KRA 2.2.a KRA 2.2.a. Number of copies of written 
research products disseminated to 
Parliament members and policy makers
Through QStaR grants
KRA 2.2.b Number of target Parliament Members 
and staff who report receipt of written 
research products and/ or verbal 
presentation from research institutions
to be collected through a survey with 
members of BALEG, BANGGAR, and 
Komisi
KRA 2.3.a Number of Parliament members reporting 
use of products of research institutions
Data was gather from reports by 
partners and were verified through 
interviews with selected MPs by 
ProRep
Table 3d: Summary of comments on Component 3 Legislative Bodies Indicators 
Indicator 
Number
Indicator Notes
PIR 3.a. Number of pieces of legislation positively 
affecting democratic governance 
deliberated and passed
This is MD3 Law; the proposed 
amendments to the Law from BAKN 
have been submitted to BALEG
KRA 3.1.a Number of consultations with constituents 
held by ProRep-engaged DPR members
This is from JABAT
KRA 3.2.a Linkages of ProRep-supported legislative 
amendments to the amendment process
Yr 1: Activities with BALEG (round 
table meeting for preparation of 
BALEG workshops on MD3 Law). Yr 
2: public hearings on amending MD3 
Law in three provinces) 
KRA.3.3.a Number of U.S.-assisted actions 
contributing to better budget or program 
oversight undertaken by the DPR
Yr 1: BAKN annual report, 
investigative report and hearing with 
ministry of education. Yr 2: hearing in 
3 universities on higher education 
budget; verification of BPK audit 
findings and recommendations with 5 
state-owned companies 
KRA 3.4.a Number of DPR institutional reforms 
proposed, passed and implemented
This is related to the amendments of 
MD3 Law

ProRep PMP 38
Appendix B: Schedule of M&E Key Activities for Year 5
Activities 2015 2016 Milestones and
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Deliverables
PMP Revision Revised PMP
Indicator data collection and 
verification (using database system) Data verification collected
Quarterly Report development Quarterly Report
Annual Report development
Annual Report
Lesson Learned Assessment (In￾depth Interview) Lesson learned (for final 
report)
Final Report development Final Report
Reflection and learning workshop with 
Education Cluster
- Success story
- Lesson learned
Reflection and learning workshop with 
Health Cluster
Reflection and learning workshop with 
DRG Cluster
Reflection and learning workshop with 
Environment Cluster
Reflection and learning workshop with 
PRN 
Follow up with former partners to 
identify success stories (in-depth 
interview) Success stories
Finalize and disseminate 
Organizational Assessment Survey 
Report of Organizational 
Improvement