PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE

INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL

(CONJUSTICIA)

ACTIVITY MONITORING, EVALUATION

AND LEARNING PLAN

June 2021
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

ACTIVITY MONITORING, EVALUATION

& LEARNING PLAN

Program Title: Programa para el Fortalecimiento de Instituciones de Justicia Penal

Estatal (Conjusticia)

Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID/Mexico

Contract Number: 72052320C00001

Start and End Date: July 24, 2020 – July 23, 2025

Contractor: DAI Global, LLC

Date of Submission: May 28, 2021

Date of Correction: June 14, 2021

This document was produced for review by the Unites States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared by DAI Global
LLC for the Programa para el Fortalecimiento de Instituciones de Justicia Penal Estatal (ConJusticia), contract number 72052320C00001. This
document is made possible by the support of the American People through USAID.
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS IV

INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 ACTIVITY PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION 2
1.2 ACTIVITY THEORY OF CHANGE 2
1.3 ACTIVITY’S RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND THEORY OF CHANGE 2
2. MONITORING PLAN 8
2.1 PERFORMANCE MONITORING 8
2.2 CONTEXT MONITORING 8
2.3 RISK MONITORING 8
2.4 DATA MANAGEMENT 9
2.5 MEL DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC 14
3. EVALUATION PLAN 15
3.1 INTERNAL EVALUATIONS 15
3.2 PLANS FOR COLLABORATING WITH EXTERNAL EVALUATORS 15
4. COLLABORATION, LEARNING AND ADAPTING 16
4.1 COLLABORATION 16
4.2 LEARNING 16
4.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 17
5. ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND SCHEDULE 19
6. CHANGE LOG 20
7. ANNEXES 24
ANNEX 1: INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TRACKING TABLE (IPTT) 25
ANNEX 2: INDICATOR REFERENCE TABLE 28
ANNEX 3: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS (PIRS) 29
ANNEX 4: REPORTING DEADLINES 54
ANNEX 5: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TASK SCHEDULE 56

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN iii

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AA&C Alliances for Analysis and Communications
ADS Automotive Directive System
AQL Acceptable Quality Level
BL Baseline
CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting
ConJusticia Programa para el Fortalecimiento de Instituciones de Justicia Penal Estatal
COP Chief of Party
COR Contracting Officer’s Representative
CPFF Cost Plus Fixed Fee
CSO Civil Society Organization
100-DC 100-Day Challenge
DAI Development Alternatives Inc.
DCOP Deputy Chief of Party
DOC Development and Outreach Communications
DQA Data Quality Assessment
DDL Development Data Library
DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse
DO Development Objective
DOC (USAID) Development Outreach and Communications
ENVIPE Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública
FAF Foreign Assistance Framework
FY Fiscal Year
FGE Fiscalías General del Estado (Attorney General’s Offices)
GESI Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
GOM Government of Mexico
ICITAP International Criminal Investigation Training Assistance Program
INEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía
IMM Institutional Maturity Model
INL Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
IPTT Indicator Performance Tracking Table
IR Intermediate Result
KM Knowledge Management
LAPOP Latin American Public Opinion Project
LOA Life of Activity
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
MJIN Mexican Justice Innovation Network
MIS Management Information System
N/A Not applicable
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
PEA Political Economy Analysis
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
PPR Performance Plan and Report
QASP Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN iv

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

RRI Rapid Results Institute

SRS Strategy Review Sessions
STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
TAMIS Technical and Administrative Management Information System
TBD To be determined
ToC Theory of Change
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN v

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

INTRODUCTION
This document presents the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Programa para
el Fortalecimiento de Instituciones de Justicia Penal Estatal (ConJusticia) Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and
Learning (MEL) Plan. Developing the Activity MEL Plan is the integral first step in performance management
for the life of activity (LOA).

Per USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) 201.3.4.10 policy guidelines, implementers must have an
approved activity MEL Plan in place before major implementation actions begin. These plans should be
submitted to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in accordance with the guidelines in an
Activity’s contract. In the case of the ConJusticia Activity, the MEL Plan is due 60 days after contract award.
Following best practices, this MEL Plan will be updated as necessary and reported in a consistent manner to
allow for easy tracking and progress over the LOA.

Data collection, analysis, and feedback are a critical part of performance monitoring; it indicates to partner
staff, USAID, and other stakeholders whether the activity is achieving its objectives. The activity MEL Plan
establishes a process for monitoring, evaluating, and learning from implementation, in order to adapt and
achieve results. The plan also does the following:

• Serves as a dynamic vehicle for activity self-assessment

• Enables team management to make decisions concerning activity direction based on facts
• Provides USAID with transparent and reliable data required for its quarterly activity monitoring
responsibilities and for annual reporting on activity performance
• Requires minimal financial and staff resources by being integrated into normal operational systems

The ConJusticia Activity MEL Plan outlines approaches and activities for monitoring progress against
objectives and using research and learning to inform adaptive management. It serves as a management tool
to:

• Provide a framework to enable the systematic collection, aggregation, analysis, and interpretation of
data to support evidence- and performance-informed decision making
• Identify core indicators to assess the ConJusticia Activity’s progress toward achieving planned
results
• Describe the main data tools, sources, and methods used to collect data
• Describe roles and responsibilities associated with MEL
• Define data quality assurance measures and data management procedures to provide transparency
and ensure data quality
• Align with USAID’s strategies in Mexico
• Facilitate consultation and discussion with USAID, key stakeholders, and partners

This MEL Plan includes four major sections:

1. The ConJusticia Activity theory of change (ToC) and results framework (RF), which present
expected LOA outcomes.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 1

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

2. Description of the activity MEL approach including the practices and processes that the ConJusticia
Activity will implement to measure progress and learn from data, including collecting, reporting, and
responding to feedback from beneficiaries.
3. Details of how the activity will collect, store, and analyze data.
4. Indicators and annual LOA targets presented in an Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT),
Annex 1, and detailed in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS), Annex 2.

Updates to this plan will be provided to the USAID COR for review and approval on an annual basis or
whenever revisions to the plan are proposed.

1.1 Activity Purpose and Description

The purpose of ConJusticia Activity is to increase the effectiveness of the Mexican criminal justice system,
primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase accountability and improve citizen
perceptions of the justice sector.

To this end, ConJusticia will work to enable justice sector institutions and actors to effectively fulfil their
mandates first individually, then collectively, and ultimately sustainably into the future. Through this activity,
justice stakeholders such the state-level Attorney General’s Offices (Fiscalías General del Estado, FGEs),
State Courts (Tribunales de Justicia) as well as prosecutors, judges, and other state-level and non-justice
sector actors (including private sector organizations and NGOs) strengthen their capacity, performance,
and collaboration to deliver a marked improvement in prosecution of high-priority crimes in Mexico.

The ConJusticia Activity Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Completion contract was awarded to DAI Global LLC
(DAI) on July 23, 2020. The period of performance for the activity is five years starting July 24, 2020 and
ending on July 23, 2025. The total estimated cost for this Contract is $29,050,089 million USD.

The ConJusticia consortium is comprised of DAI as the prime in partnership with ConJusticia’s major
subcontractor, Fortis Consultoría, as well as Rapid Results Institute (RRI) and U.S.-based small business
Metropolitan Group.

1.2 Activity Theory of Change

ConJusticia Link to USAID/Mexico’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy

The ConJusticia Activity supports the achievement of the current USAID/Mexico Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 2020-2025 goal that Mexico makes progress towards achievement of its
citizen security, justice, human rights, and environmental goals through bilateral partnership, and
Development Objective (DO) I, Impunity and Violence reduced in Targeted Regions. ConJusticia’s results
framework connects directly to DO 1 by enabling justice sector institutions and actors to effectively fulfil
their mandates individually (under the program’s Intermediate Result-IR- 1), collectively (IR 2), and
sustainably (IR 3) into the future.

1.3 Activity’s Results Framework and Theory of Change

Development Context

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 2

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Since 2008, Mexico, with support from USAID, has made considerable progress in implementing the
Adversarial Criminal Justice System as mandated by the Mexican Congress to reduce impunity. Considerable
work remains, however, as crime and violence continue to afflict the country, high levels of impunity
continue to exist and varied implementation results of the new system across states leave many citizens
frustrated that the government is not delivering justice or protecting the most vulnerable.

Most states continue to lack processes for determining priorities and do not focus on cases likely to make
the highest impact on lowering impunity, increasing public safety, or capturing persistent offenders. In
addition, many justice sector actors lack data collection and management tools that would allow them to
monitor performance, identify issues, strengthen external collaboration, and better focus on attending to
and resolving high-priority crimes.

ConJusticia Theory of Change

ConJusticia’s ToC is as follows:

IF, justice sector processes, structures and practices within the individual institutions become more
efficient and effective,

and IF, inter-institutional coordination is increased,

and IF, local actors address deeply rooted challenges that diminish the sustainability of results,

THEN, there will be a more effective and accountable justice response to criminal misconduct, resulting
in lower levels of impunity and increased citizen confidence in the Mexican government.

The activity’s ToC is premised on several key assumptions listed in Table 1. As the activity proceeds, staff
will use the list below as guidance for action and adaptation, where needed, and will document information
collected on all assumptions in a structured manner to include as part of the activity’s collaboration, learning
and adaptation (CLA) work.

Table 1. List of activity ToC Assumptions and Corresponding Monitoring Tools

Assumption Monitoring Tool

Government of Mexico (GoM), FGEs, State Courts and other relevant local Activity Documentation
system actors (e.g., Citizen Security Secretariats, Public Defenders, civil
society), continue to implement needed changes and ensure political will for
sustainable outcomes
Counterpart staff have the appropriate capacity to manage the system and the Activity Documentation
absorptive capacity to take on needed changes
Macroeconomic trends or other global considerations such as natural disasters Local News Sources and Activity
do not distract from priorities Documents
Staff turnover does not hamper implementation or uptake Activity Documentation

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 3

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Assumption Monitoring Tool

COVID-19 begins to recede allowing for normal Activity implementation Mexico’s COVID-19 Traffic Light
Monitoring System
Organized crime does not adversely affect the implementation process and Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema
impact overall security Nacional de Seguridad Pública
(SESNSP) Monthly Crime Reports,
Local news sources and Mexico
Mission guidelines

ConJusticia Key Interventions to Catalyze Outcomes

IR 1. Individual justice sector institutions prioritize and fully prosecute higher-level serious
criminal cases

Intermediate Result (IR) 1 will focus on building the capacity of FGEs and courts through five key
interventions. These five interventions comprise the sub-IRs of this IR and include:

IR 1.1: Improved capacity of FGEs to prioritize cases based on criminal prosecution prioritization
frameworks
IR 1.2: Internal processes and management of FGEs and courts strengthened
IR 1.3: Capacity of FGEs to investigate and prosecute high-priority crimes strengthened
IR 1.4: Improved data tracking and analytics capacity of FGE and courts to better manage and resolve
high-priority cases
IR 1.5: Improved communication, transparency, and accountability of justice sector institutions
through proactive engagement with users and the public

The foundation of this IR (IR 1.1) is the development and implementation of comprehensive prioritization
frameworks. Together, these results will ensure that FGEs and courts have the capabilities, systems,
processes, and tools to prosecute high-priority crimes (those identified in the prioritization frameworks)
that can make a marked impact on citizen satisfaction with the justice system.

As part of IR 1.2, ConJusticia will help improve the overall management of justice institutions to ensure
resources and systems within FGEs and courts are aligned to enable prosecutors and judges to focus on the
resolution of high-priority cases.

Through its work on IR 1.3, ConJusticia will help strengthen the operational capacity of justice actors to
conduct effective investigations, with a focus on the applied tools and techniques required to increase the
likelihood of successful prosecution.

IR 1.4 will include crosscutting interventions to improve the use of data for decision making throughout the
investigation process.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 4

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Lastly, IR 1.5 will help strengthen the capability of justice sector institutions to communicate more effectively
with the public, increasing awareness of justice sector reforms, and developing an improved user-centered
focus in the justice process.

ConJusticia will work with FGEs and courts in each focus state to conduct self-assessments to determine
where they fall on the Institutional Maturity Model (IMM). This will inform development of tailored
performance improvement plans for each, aligned to the level of resources, political will, and existing
capacities of counterparts. The activity will respond with heavy- touch or light-touch support depending on
the results of the self-assessments, engaging grantees and subcontractors to build capacity through
experiential learning such as peer learning, mentorships, practical application of training and capacity building
from Mexican institutes and promote sustainability of the local system.

Throughout the activity, work on IR 1 will incorporate gender and other vulnerable populations’
perspectives into criminal investigations and case resolution.

IR 2. Justice sector actors within the various institutions collaborate across institutions
resulting in improved prosecutions and reductions in impunity

IR 2 focuses on facilitating partnerships to assist prosecutors, judges, investigative police, and other justice
sector and non-state actors, including private sector and civil society organizations, to collaborate to apply
the frameworks and tools identified in IR 1 correctly under our work within IR 2.

To that end, IR 2 interventions will help institutions advance toward higher levels in the ConJusticia IMM.
Consistent with a local systems approach, ConJusticia will primarily help local organizations collaborate to
prioritize and develop their own solutions to justice sector problems.

IR 2 is comprised of two sub-IRs. These include:

IR 2.1: Mechanisms for inter-institutional collaboration strengthened

IR 2.2: Enhanced collaboration among prosecutors, police, and investigators to improve the speed and
quality of investigations and prosecutions for high-priority crimes

The development of criminal prosecution frameworks with multi-stakeholder groups (IR 1) will promote
institutional alignment regarding where to focus collective efforts to improve prosecutions of high-priority
cases. From here, ConJusticia will diagnose the specific causes that underpin the lack of stakeholder
collaboration in target states. ConJusticia will simultaneously conduct a 100-Day Challenges (100-DC) at
the beginning of the activity. Through these facilitated events, the activity will bring multi-stakeholder groups
to generate together a common vision for desired results and to solve system bottlenecks affecting
prosecution and justice adjudication processes including key institutional and operational obstacles limiting
access of women, girls, and other vulnerable populations to justice.

As a result of work under this IR, pressing short-term problems will be solved through the creation of inter-
institutional leadership and operational groups that will work to implement identified solutions. ConJusticia
will provide continued facilitation support to the inter-institutional leadership groups to continue meeting
regularly to develop more medium-term plans and agreements to address performance issues that occur

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 5

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

throughout the prosecution process, including investigations, handling of evidence, witness testimony, and
alternative disposition. Together, these interventions will strengthen inter-institutional collaboration to
improve prosecutions and reduce impunity, laying the foundation for durable partnerships (IR 3).

IR 3. Durable partnerships among key local stakeholders in the justice sector strengthened

This IR is comprised of two sub-IRS. These include:

IR 3.1: Networks of justice sector institutions, civil society, academia and private sector for developing
local solutions strengthened

IR 3.2: Peer-to-peer professional networks established and functioning

Under this IR, ConJusticia will catalyze the co-ownership and responsibility of public and private sector and
civil society organizations of a responsive and results-driven Criminal Justice System, at the national and
state level with an eye on the long-term view. To this end, the activity will utilize a series of facilitative
techniques, including coaching and mentorship to cultivate networks supported by strategic use of the
ConJusticia grants fund to spark innovation and identify additional resources from other sources to amplify
results.

ConJusticia will also cultivate networks of influential civil society and private sector partners to play a major
role in dialogue regarding justice sector reform—both to promote upward accountability and to mobilize
additional resources to enhance financial sustainability of these initiatives in line with USAID’s Journey to
Self-Reliance objectives.

Lastly, ConJusticia will help institutionalize practices and mechanisms for institutional strengthening initiated
under IR 1 through the cultivation of local peer-to-peer professional networks. The activity will make
concerted efforts to ensure the networks have an impact across all target states through the fostering of
dialogue with other traditional actors, such as public defenders, as well as professional associations,
specialized CSOs and academics. These networks will enable professionals from across justice institutions
to continuously learn and hone their skills as they draw on their colleagues for support and ideas on how
to address common problems. In combination, these initiatives will enhance the likelihood that previous
investments in individual and collective capacity building to improve justice sector performance will sustain
beyond ConJusticia’s final year.

Interventions under IR 3 will help justice sector institutions advance to Level 4 on the IMM to ensure
sustainability of results.

ConJusticia Results Framework

The current ConJusticia Activity Results Framework is presented in Figure 1.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 6

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Figure 1 ConJusticia Results Framework

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 7

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

2. MONITORING PLAN
The ConJusticia Activity will implement a multi-pronged MEL approach utilizing activities ranging from
reporting on quantitative-based USAID and custom indicators, to conducting surveys and qualitative studies
of the underlying issues around implementation in order to have a greater impact.

2.1 Performance Monitoring

The activity MEL Plan includes 22 indicators that will be used to monitor progress and manage performance
through the LOA at the output, outcome, impact, and context levels.

In determining appropriate activity indicators, ConJusticia included five context indicators and 17 custom
indicators to enable straightforward reporting on activity progress and the context, as outlined in the RF
(Figure 1), and for USAID’s use on their Performance Plan and Report (PPR).

Together, these 22 indicators provide a comprehensive measurement of ConJusticia’s effectiveness in

meeting targeted results. Details on each of the indicators, including definitions, data sources, and frequency
of data collection and reporting can be found in the PIRS provided in Annex 2. A comprehensive list of
activity indicators is presented in the IPTT in Annex 1.

As part of ConJusticia’s efforts to collect and learn from data, monitoring will include collecting, reporting,
and responding to feedback from beneficiaries through participant surveys, sharing program performance
indicators with counterparts through participatory sessions, and other feedback mechanisms.

2.2 Context Monitoring

The activity MEL Plan includes five context indicators that will be used to monitor the country context as
well as activity context under which ConJusticia will be implemented. These context indicators are level of
perception of society's trust in Judges and Prosecutors (ENVIPE), citizen confidence that courts guarantee
a fair trial (Latin American Public Opinion Project-LAPOP), unrecorded crime rate, or cifra negra (ENVIPE),
and the Rule of Law Index for Mexico (World Justice Project). These indicators align to the USAID/Mexico
Mission’s own Results Framework.

2.3 Risk Monitoring

In addition to its plans for monitoring ToC assumptions in Table 1, ConJusticia will monitor risks associated
with the activity. Table 2 below summarizes strategies to address identified challenges.

Table 2. Year 1 Risk Mitigation Strategies

Potential Risk Risk Mitigation Strategies

Changes in the federal and state • Apply a situational analysis to assess the scope of opportunities and
political context including the challenges, and ensure all interventions are designed taking into
upcoming July 2021 elections consideration learning from the situational analysis

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 8

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

• Promote ‘quick wins’ by building on successes and lessons learned from

USAID’s prior and ongoing projects (such as PROJUST and JAVA), to
demonstrate results and create buy-in at the state level.
• Focus on achievement of high impact results during Year 1 and 2,
communicate progress among stakeholders and promote a positive narrative
to reflect effective steps to reduce impunity and improve citizens’ confidence
in the criminal justice system.
• Implement a flexible adaptive management approach to respond and adapt
to priority changes in the context.
• Focus on strengthening collaboration with multiple local system stakeholders
(private sector, academia, CSOs) to promote sustainability of ConJusticia’s
results and agendas amid any potential political changes.
• Employ differentiated approaches to improve the capacity of justice districts.
This includes the adaptation of technical methodologies that respond to
specific capacity levels and local dynamics within state
• Implement knowledge management strategies to leave behind project’s
lessons learned and legacy that will be used to train and on-board new staff
in key institutions.
Varying capacity levels, personnel • Accelerate the development of professional networks and peer-to-peer
turn-over and political will of key relationships to add technical support to incoming staff in target states with
project counterparts high staff turn-over.
• Work with state-level justice institutions and local systems to communicate
results to counter the adverse narrative around the Adversarial Criminal
Justice System reform.
• Work with USAID to identify opportunities to engage with Federal
government institutions to expand or scale-up project’s impact beyond
target states.
Trend of increased high-impact • Promote comprehensive inter-institutional collaboration to mitigate the
crime and competing priorities in impact of organized crime structures operating in target states to mitigate
FGEs and Courts high-impact crimes such as homicides.
• Leverage best practices from DAI projects, ConJusticia’s consortium
partners regarding use of technology to effectively implement activities
virtually, and foster collaboration among peer and states virtually, thereby
positioning the activity to operate successfully in Mexico despite social
Reduced capacity of justice distancing and quarantine measures.
sector operators to provide • Exploit the interest and need for the use of technology to make processes
effective service delivery during more efficient and transparent
COVID-19 pandemic • Increase importance of prior experience working with USAID projects as a
state selection criterion for Year 1 to capitalize on ConJusticia’s staff and
consortium partners prior relationships with key counterparts. This will
ensure a quick positioning of ConJusticia during the social distancing period
under COVID-19.

2.4 Data Management

Data Collection

ConJusticia will use primary data as a means for reporting progress and results against activity indicators.
Where possible, the Activity will prioritize digital data collection using DAI Collect, a cloud-based platform
based on open-source code. DAI Collect allows users to design and deploy standardized data collection
forms. We will create standard operating procedures (SOPs) for each indicator and train program staff in
data collection to ensure data quality.
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 9
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Data Storage

ConJusticia will securely store all data collected. Digitally collected data will be stored on DAI’s central
server in the U.S. Any data that is collected using hard copies will be stored in locked file cabinets or rooms
in the ConJusticia’s office. Activity data will also be stored in ConJusticia’s internal information technology
systems, such as an online management information system that supports real-time analysis of data to inform
management decisions, collaboration, planning, reporting, and communication. Once data is entered into
the system, it automatically produces standardized summary views helping staff monitor progress. PowerBI,
Microsoft’s business analytics and data visualization platform, now embedded in DAI systems, will provide
DAI real-time reports and data for decision making. Importantly, this helps mitigate remote management
challenges by allowing users in dispersed geographic locations, such as the ConJusticia field offices, to share
data efficiently and transparently. Timely reporting from the Region Coordinators will also help the technical
and grant teams stay apprised of progress across the whole grant portfolio.

Through DAI platforms, the Mexico City-based technical leaders as well as grants and procurement staff
will be able to work seamlessly with Region Coordinators on the grants, subcontracts, and other resources
needed. The real time data and documentation features of these systems also enable DAI’s home office to
support the project team directly and conduct regular compliance checks.

With support from DAI’s home office team, ConJusticia will also seek to develop a web-based MEL
Management Information System (MIS) that will be accessible to the COR or other USAID personnel.

For audit purposes, copies of all data collected for indicator reporting will be available for review at the
ConJusticia office in Mexico City.

Data Security

ConJusticia will follow DAI institutional data security protocols to ensure that information is appropriately
safeguarded during storage. Any information deemed sensitive or proprietary will be accessible by invitation
of activity leads and USAID.

Data Analysis & Use

In line with USAID reporting requirements, data from the activity MEL Plan will be analyzed regularly and
used to determine progress toward expected results. In addition, ConJusticia MEL staff and other designated
activity staff will prepare relevant graphs and charts of indicator disaggregates for annual reports.

Baseline Data Collection and Establishment of Targets

Baseline data will be used to measure change throughout the LOA as well as to determine the starting point
of the ConJusticia indicators. Upon approval of ConJusticia MEL Plan, the ConJusticia Baseline Study planning
will begin.

During year 1, the activity will conduct the ConJusticia Perception Survey to measure citizens' trust in justice
institutions and to set targets for the goal-level indicator. This will be a statistically significant sample-based
perception survey on which respondents will be asked, among other things, to respond via a Likert even-

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 10

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

point scale regarding the extent to which they trust justice institutions. Data from this survey will be used
to determine the baseline value for the goal indicator as well as to determine appropriate targets for this
indicator.

In order to implement the IMM, the Knowledge Management (KM) and CLA Director and Senior M&E
Manager will work closely with the Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP). This effort will entail developing specific
metrics to measure IMM’s milestones and the activity’s five technical elements – Prioritization, Data and
Analysis, Investigations, Court Efficiency, Information Sharing and Transparency – that enable successful
prosecution of high-priority cases. The team will also develop self-assessment tools to facilitate the
collection of data in each target institution and facilitate the application of these tools in each target
institution (FGE and Courts) once target states are confirmed and ConJusticia is authorized to initiate
activities in these states. To apply the IMM, ConJusticia will: 1) facilitate self-assessments with target state
institutions based on the technical elements and levels of the model; 2) facilitate commitments within each
individual institution (objective 1) and across institutions (objective 2), based on the result of the self-
assessments, in order to establish specific targets to move across the institutional capacity continuum (level
1-4) and generate specific capacity building plans; 3) learn and adapt through constant monitoring and
evaluation efforts to update level of commitment and adjust programming periodically as needed; and 4)
document and communicate results.

As part of the Baseline Study, the activity will also assess the capacity of FGE and Courts in the area of
communication.

Data Quality Standards & Assessments

Evidence-based performance management is only as good as the data that is collected. The primary
determinants of data quality are clear definitions of the required data that are also well understood by all
concerned, and a careful process for collecting and handling the data. More specifically, ConJusticia will
ensure that the performance data meets the USAID required five data quality standards that follow. If
performance data does not fully meet all five standards, the activity will document the known data limitations
in the PIRS in Annex A.

In order to ensure the quality of the data collected, activity staff will conduct quarterly reviews of all
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) data in order to review completeness, accuracy, and relevance to the
activity’s goal and objectives. The Senior M&E Manager will also conduct spot-checks of data quarterly and
during field visits.

For spot-checks, data collected for specific, pre-determined indicators and the documents supporting the
data will be thoroughly reviewed using tailored assessment. Findings from the spot-checks will be reported
to ensure that they inform management decisions. Note that all salient data quality review results will also
be included in regular reporting to USAID and others, as appropriate. The activity will address any issues
with the data quality in reporting and make clear and actionable recommendations to improve data quality.

ConJusticia will use the following procedures to ensure data quality throughout the LOA:

• Staff training: To promote data consistency, staff and grantees involved in data collection,
management, and/or reporting will be trained in SOPs.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 11

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

• Simplified, standardized procedures: Data collection methods will be as simple and

straightforward as possible and supported by SOPs and standard M&E tools.
• Data entry protocols: All data will be regularly checked for completeness prior to entry into data
collection and reporting tables.

Data Standards & Descriptions

• Validity is how well the data measures the intended result, and whether the data reflect a bias such
as interviewer bias, unrepresentative sampling, or transcription bias.
• Integrity stems from established mechanisms that eliminate or reduce the possibility that they are
manipulated for political or personal reasons.
• Precision ensures that the data present a fair picture of performance and enable decision-making.
Thus, data are required to be disaggregated at an appropriate level of detail.
• Reliability stems from stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over
time.
• Timeliness is a critical aspect of data collection and reporting to USAID. Data should be timely
enough (and current enough when they are available) to support decision-making.

ConJusticia will contribute toward and actively participate in any external Data Quality Assessments (DQA)
as directed by USAID.

Routine Reporting to USAID

ConJusticia will report regularly to USAID, as appropriate, to ensure shared understanding of progress
toward objectives and learning associated with implementation. Any deviations from the schedule will be
agreed to in advance and documented between the COR and activity. A complete reporting schedule is
presented in Annex 4.

Under this activity, there will be three regular reports submitted to USAID that will include MEL input.
These include:

1. Quarterly Reports
2. Annual Reports
3. Final Report

All Quarterly, Annual, and Final activity reports submitted to USAID will be in accordance with contract
requirements and adhere to USAID’s Branding Implementation and Marking Plan.

Quarterly Reports

ConJusticia will submit performance progress reports on a quarterly basis within 30 days of the end of each
fiscal year quarter reflecting results and interventions of the preceding quarter. The format for these reports
follows the Mission’s Quarterly Progress Report template provided by the COR. These reports will be
concise and present the following information:
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 12
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

• Executive Summary
• Progress to date for MEL indicators for that quarter, depending on data availability
• The specific accomplishments of the activity as well as any short-term technical assistance (STTA),
including information on all interventions, both ongoing and completed, by component, and
geographically by state and/or judicial district
• Highlights of any issues or problems that are affecting the delivery or timing of services
• Summary of activity progress against tasks and benchmarks, including tasks assigned through
technical directives and identify implementation issues that may inhibit or enhance performance
• Discussion on interactions with counterparts, and any necessary alterations to the work plan and
initial timetable
• Success stories, providing information that demonstrates the impact that the activity has had during
the reporting period through materials such as stories, quotes and photos (These success stories
will also be submitted separately via the Agency’s Telling Our Story website
(http://www.usaid.gov/stories/) after a review by the Mission’s Development and Outreach
Communications (DOC) team
• Reporting specifically on gender activities will be provided in the table format provided by USAID

ConJusticia will also submit an electronic copy of each quarterly progress report to the USAID Development
Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) in which politically sensitive or proprietary information is eliminated or
redacted.

Annual Reports

ConJusticia will prepare and submit to the COR an Annual Report for each year of activity implementation
no later than October 31st of each year. The Annual Report will reflect the structure of the annual work
plan and will report overall performance against MEL indicators during the USG fiscal year (FY), which runs
from October 1st to September 30th. The report will include explanations as to why targets were not
achieved or were exceeded, as applicable, and will describe any relevant analytical work, evaluations and
assessments over the year, along with any corresponding recommendations detailing how they are being
applied.

The Annual Report will highlight specific accomplishments and summarize results and interventions for the
year, both ongoing and completed, by component and geographically. The report will also identify any
problems, obstacles or challenges to performance that arose and proposed or applied solutions.

Final Report

The Final Report for the ConJusticia Activity, the draft of which will be submitted 30 days before contract
completion, will summarize the accomplishments and impact of ConJusticia in relation to expected results,
in accordance with the approved activity MEL Plan. Not exceeding 25 pages (with no more than 50 pages of
annexes), it will contain a three-page executive summary, an index of all reports and information products
produced under the ConJusticia contract and at a minimum will include:

• The activity impact as compared to baseline conditions and data;

• A description of all institutions and organizations worked with in connection with activity
components and an evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses;
• Problems encountered, objectives not fully achieved and why, and lessons learned; and
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 13
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

• Incorporation of any additional/available evaluative data compared to activity results and any
explanatory background.

The final report may suggest ways to resolve identified constraints and provide recommendations for follow-
on work that might complement the work completed under ConJusticia.

The COR will provide written comments, and the Contracting Officer may likewise add written comments,
which the Contractor must address in revising the draft and submitting a final completion report no later
than 30 days past the end-date of the contract.

With COR approval, the final quarterly report can be combined with the Annual Report.

2.5 MEL During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic presents innumerable challenges to implementation and subsequently MEL. To
that end, ConJusticia will monitor conditions in target states via Mexico’s COVID-19 Traffic Light Monitoring
System and will collaborate with stakeholders to effectively manage adaptively when and where necessary.

ConJusticia will conform to all DAI and USAID COVID-19 protocols and will employ social distancing and
appropriate protective measures to ensure neither staff nor stakeholders are put at risk through the work
of ConJusticia. If the pandemic persists into 2021, the MEL team may have to utilize technology platforms
such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, among others, to interface with stakeholders and monitor from afar, since
there may be limitations to going to the field. The MEL team may need to conduct adaptations to the baseline
if, for example, collecting perception survey data is deemed too risky at the time. ConJusticia will work with
USAID and stakeholders to collectively determine the best path forward.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 14

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

3. EVALUATION PLAN
Effective monitoring and analysis will help in evaluating the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and
sustainability of activities. The following section provides an illustrative list of evaluation questions that will
be informed and updated in consultation with USAID and its partners.

3.1 Internal Evaluations

Throughout the life of the activity, ConJusticia will utilize a CLA Approach to continually review and revise
activities, in consultation with the COR.

To date, no formal internal evaluations are planned. Any undertaken in future though will be designed in a
way that meet the principles of USAID’s evaluation policy. This means that they will be unbiased, relevant,
based on the best methods, transparent, and planned for high utility, and will endeavor to address the most
important questions on our impact. Any internal evaluations will also be shared with key counterparts and
beneficiaries to garner feedback.

Potential Evaluation Questions

• Relevance: To what extent are activity objectives and methods still appropriate to strengthening
Mexico’s local criminal justice system on the state-level?
• Effectiveness: What are the major factors that have contributed to or prevented progress to date?
• Efficiency: Are project resources being used efficiently or could the same results have been achieved
with fewer resources or alternative approaches?
• Sustainability: To what extent is the program bringing about sustainable changes? To what extent are
the approaches being integrated into GoM systems? To what extent do the approaches have government
buy-in to continue their operation beyond the life of the program? To what extent have beneficiary
agencies collaborated in the development of program approaches? What are the key risks to longer-
term sustainability and what can be done to reduce these risks over the remainder of the program?

In accordance with USAID’s Evaluation Policy, ConJusticia will use evaluation methodologies with the dual
purposes of accountability to USAID, government partners and other stakeholders, and learning about key
results to improve effectiveness. In the simplest terms, evaluations planned for the activity will answer three
questions: What? So what? Now what? Answers to these questions will not only aim to understand the
activity’s effectiveness but also to generate new knowledge for how best the USG can support the GoM.

Regular monitoring of activity performance indicators will provide the answers to what questions as well as
demonstrate accountability. Evaluation questions will be used to answer the so what question and track
changes over time. Now what questions will be answered through our CLA work.

3.2 Plans for Collaborating with External Evaluators

The ConJusticia Activity will cooperate fully with any USAID supported evaluations. This includes providing
feedback on draft evaluation designs, draft evaluation data collection instruments, and the draft evaluation
report, meeting with the evaluators, providing access to activity files and data, providing information as

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 15

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

requested, making staff available to answer questions related to our activities, and assisting with logistics and
meetings, where appropriate.

4. COLLABORATION, LEARNING AND ADAPTING

ConJusticia is committed to learning as a keystone of successful implementation and in order to effectively
amplify our results for maximum impact. The activity’s approach to CLA is integrated throughout the activity
lifecycle. ConJusticia will apply CLA practices to inform adaptive management strategy. These CLA practices
are integrated into stages of interventions with partner states at the activity level, as well as structured
learning events that engage the whole project team and justice sector stakeholders.

4.1 Collaboration

ConJusticia will collaborate with a multitude of stakeholders including USAID, the GoM, individual states,
civil society, the private sector, justice sector experts, and representatives from justice sector institutions
such as the FGEs, courts and public defense. In addition, ConJusticia will consult and collaborate regularly
with other USAID Activities such as the Justice Access for Victims and the Accused (JAVA) Activity, the
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL)-funded projects, and the Alliances for
Analysis and Communications (AA&C) Activity, among others.

ConJusticia will host annual Strategy Review Sessions (SRS) to enable ConJusticia activity leadership, key
local justice sector stakeholders, senior leaders from USAID’s other justice sector projects, and other USG
programs to discuss progress toward achievement of results and to learn from experience to adapt our
support appropriately. The SRS is an opportunity to collaborate and reflect on progress, and for local justice
sector stakeholders to provide feedback regarding their experience, identify priorities, and co-develop
strategies for future ConJusticia engagement. The SRS is not a directive approach but a facilitated dialogue
that enables local stakeholders to provide necessary feedback to project leadership so that adaptation can
occur.

See Table 3 for other ConJusticia CLA events.

4.2 Learning

The ConJusticia Activity’s learning agenda includes a set of questions that address critical knowledge gaps
that impede informed management decisions and therefore help to a) ensure relevance of the activity’s ToC
and RF, b) foster adaptation of activities as evidence emerges, and c) identify and focus on solutions that
contribute to short- and long-term priorities.

The activity’s current learning agenda includes the following questions:

• How can we best support the GoM and individual states to reduce impunity, increase
accountability and improve citizen perceptions of the justice sector?
• What are the main limitations, positive and perverse incentives faced by justice sector institutions
and their operators?
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 16
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

• How are civil society and the private sector engaged with public justice sector institutions?
• What are the priorities of each local criminal justice system we work with? Why?
• How can we improve and adapt our activities, and can these lessons apply to other USAID-funded
activities?
• How does the justice sector in Mexico impact women and marginalized people differently from men?

4.3 Adaptive Management

The ConJusticia Activity will use a range of methods, as appropriate, to implement the activity learning
agenda and facilitate an environment for adaptive management, including:

• Conducting ongoing situational analyses, including Political Economic Analyses, of the national and
state-level implementation context
• Working with designated partners to conduct internal and partner group discussion sessions
focusing on solutions and lessons learned
• Reviewing and synthesizing performance data and incorporating regular feedback loops with key
stakeholders before, during, and after implementation
• Convening regular staff meetings and field visits to review activities and identify points of success
and failure, obstacles and opportunities

The senior leadership team of ConJusticia will use a collection of structured communication, information
sharing procedures, and events to inform cross-functional team learning and identify and address bottlenecks
or challenges. Table 3, below, summarizes the CLA events ConJusticia will use to inform adaptive
management responses.

Table 3. CLA Events and ConJusticia Adaptive Management Responses

CLA Event Adaptive Management Response

Biweekly Portfolio Reports • Successes result in follow-up by technical directors to

receive more detailed feedback
Region Coordinators, via TAMIS, report progress
• Rolling 60-day plans trigger grants and finance teams to
updates on activities, highlight achievement, update 60- initiate necessary supporting actions
day activity/ resource plans, and flag challenges or • Challenges result in follow-up from relevant functional
constraints team to troubleshoot solution and mobilize support, if
needed
Quarterly Impact and Learning Reviews • MEL Plan targets reviewed; activity progress updated
through quarterly reports
ConJusticia team, advisory committee, USAID COR,
• Workplan adjusted and updates circulated to ConJusticia
and stakeholder partners hold evidence-informed team
learning sessions to review key finding from the • Specific grants or subcontracts modified
previous period, identify administrative bottlenecks, • Internal project administrative process reviews and
and make decisions about necessary adjustments updates to streamline cooperation and activity delivery

Annual SRS • Learning informs subsequent ConJusticia workplan

development, submitted for approval
At the conclusion of a workplan cycle, annual SRS
• Working groups of various USAID projects or other US
events to bring together interested activity agencies established to actualize areas of collaboration
stakeholders and senior leaders from USAID’s other identified at SRS
justice sector projects, Department of State Bureau of
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 17
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

CLA Event Adaptive Management Response

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs • MEL Plan updated to incorporate adjustments to
(INL), and International Criminal Investigation Training indicators or targets, submitted for approval
• Specific successful innovations or framework identified
Assistance Program (ICITAP) to share feedback on the
with scaling strategies developed
overall project progress, co-create strategies for future • Strong performing IEAJI staff identified for additional
engagement, and identify areas to leverage resources, responsibility or promotion
foster collaboration, and prevent duplication or
counterproductive efforts
Annual Political Economic Analysis (PEA) • New states and districts for ConJusticia expansion
Refresh identified
• Mitigation strategies developed for new threats or
ConJusticia revisit initial situational analysis to update challenges to ConJusticia success
with new learning, information and contextual updates

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 18

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

5. ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND SCHEDULE

The ConJusticia KM and CLA Director, under the direct supervision of the COP, will lead the activity’s
efforts to implement the project’s adaptive management strategy. She/he will also coordinate the generation
of proven technical frameworks, and communication of project results, ensuring that project learning events
translate into effective actions to adjust activities and operations following CLA principles. The KM and CLA
Director will supervise the KM/CLA Specialist and Strategic Communications Specialist while the Senior
M&E Manager will supervise the M&E team.

The KM and CLA and M&E Teams will play a critical role in capturing lessons from activities in each state
and working with the technical team to transform lessons learned into replicable models and approaches
that can be transferred to stakeholders in other states. The Senior M&E Manager will be responsible for
overseeing the project’s MEL Plan while the KM and CLA Director will facilitating the project’s CLA-based
adaptive management events described in this MEL Plan.

The Senior M&E Manager, in close coordination with the KM and CLA Director, will develop and maintain
the ConJusticia MEL system, ensure effective, timely, and accurate data collection/quality. She/he will track
activity performance to inform adaptive management and analyze data for input into contractual reports,
overseeing learning and collaboration across project staff, partners, and offices.

See Annex 4 for ConJusticia Reporting Deadlines

See Annex 5 for the ConJusticia Performance Management Task Schedule

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 19

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

6. CHANGE LOG
The activity MEL Plan will be updated when significant adjustments are made to the activity in response to
new information and changes in context. This section includes Table 4, which will be used to describe and
document the changes that are made to the activity MEL Plan over time.

Table 4. ConJusticia Change Log

Date Change By Change To Description of Change

Effective Person who Section of the activity Summarize the change that was made to the activity MEL plan
date of made the MEL plan changed. If and the reason the change was made.
change change an indicator has been
changed, include the
indicator number.
February Clare The following indicators were modified in the Indicator Performance Tracking Table
22, 2021 Mcinerney, (IPTT) and corresponding Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS):
Senior M&E Percent of cases Original indicator removed and replaced with what was formerly
Manager assigned a priority on #2.1. “% increase in prosecution rates for high priority cases.”
filing Originally indicator #1.1 and defined as “the percent of cases that
are assigned a priority on filing […] In this case, ‘on filing’ means
when the case is officially filed with the court.” State Courts are
not the appropriate justice actor to assign cases priority, as all
filed cases must receive the same objective treatment as they are
filed by that institution according to the penal code. The justice
sector entity assigning priority is the FGE, however this institution
does not assign priority at the point of filing, rather, this moment
will likely vary by state and target judicial district. Thus, the
originally proposed indicator is not an applicable measure of case
prioritization.
Number of feedback Indicator removed. Originally #1.1.2, this indicator sought to
sessions held to measure “sessions held to solicit feedback on the results of the
analyze results of Prosecution Prioritization framework development” to be held at
Prosecution the state-level and with participation by the public.” Upon further
Prioritization revision, this originally proposed output indicator does not
frameworks provide meaningful data on the impact of prioritization
frameworks. Furthermore, not all prioritization frameworks
developed over the course of the project will result in public
feedback sessions (some may involve sensitive information on
ongoing investigations against criminal groups or structures, for
example). Finally, the number of feedback sessions conducted by
local counterparts may not be within the control of the project
for the purpose of setting annual or life-of-project targets.
Prosecution rates in This indicator, originally #1.3.1, was removed due to its
targeted investigation redundancy with indicator 2.1 based on the understanding that
and prosecution the project will only target those investigation units involved in
units priority crimes in line with prioritization frameworks. This is to
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 20
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

say that the expected result of the indicator would be identical to

that of 2.1, which will be disaggregated by crime.
# of agreements, Currently # 2.1, this same indicator was formerly Indicator #2.1.1
protocols and as described below. This indicator encompasses a higher-level
systems implemented outcome more representative of the Intermediate Result and is
resulting from an appropriate readjustment given that the former 2.1 was moved
collaboration among to Indicator #1.1 (% increase in prosecution rates for high priority
justice actors cases).
% decrease in The numeration of this indicator was changed to reflect
average time for all adjustments to the Results Framework and is now #2.1.1. This
case resolutions in was modified because IR 2.2 deals specifically with investigations
the State Court within the FGE, while this indicator measures effectiveness across
both the FGE and the State Court. Furthermore, this change
replaces the original indicator 2.1.1, which was raised to 2.1 (as
described above), thus better accommodating indicators for each
IR and Sub-IR. The indicator measures resolutions for all types of
crime, with data from the State Court only, and is distinct from
indicator 1.2.1 which measures resolution time for only high-
priority cases.
February Clare Context Indicators The following Context Indicators were added to the activity MEL
8, 2021 Mcinerney, Added Plan:
Senior M&E B. Level of perception of society's trust in State Attorneys
Manager General Offices. (ENVIPE)
C. Citizen confidence that courts guarantee a fair trial (LAPOP)
D. Unrecorded crime rate, cifra negra, (ENVIPE)
E. Rule of Law Index for Mexico, specifically the criminal justice
component, disaggregated by state. (World Justice Project)

The project will collect and report data on these indicators

although they are outside its manageable interests. Indicator B
was added to complement the Context Indicator originally
proposed to measure trust in judges, given that State Attorneys
General Offices are one of the two primary justice institutions
with which ConJusticia will collaborate. Indicators C, D, and E
were added to align to USAID/Mexico’s mission-wide results
framework.
January Clare Disaggregation Where possible, disaggregation that indicates inclusion of a GESI
22, 2021 Mcinerney, related to GESI perspective were added to multiple indicators to provide
Senior M&E considerations added additional information on the impact of project outcomes on
Manager to multiple indicators issues of gender and social inclusion. Specific criteria on what this
constitutes will be provided in each PIRS as the GESI Strategy is
developed and over the course of the baseline study, detailing
specifically what factors were considered for this determination.
May 6, Clare The following indicators were modified in the Indicator Performance Tracking Table
2021 Mcinerney, (IPTT) and corresponding Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS):

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 21

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Senior M&E 1. % of justice system Originally “% of citizens expressing trust in justice institutions,”
Manager users expressing the indicator was modified in consultation with USAID to focus
trust in justice solely on justice system users. This change was made so as not
institutions to be repetitive with Context Indicators A and B, which report
data from an extensive national survey, ENVIPE, that can be
disaggregated by state and adequately reflect changes in public
perception of key justice sector actors. ConJusticia will
implement a brief user survey that measures both perception of
justice institutions and actors, as well as level of satisfaction with
services received, particularly updates on cases (Indicator 1.5.1).
The survey will be administered annually.
1.2.1 # of USG- This Standard Indicator DR.1.5-1 was added and is linked to
assisted courts with ConJusticia Sub-IR 1.2, “Internal processes and management of
improved case FGEs and courts strengthened.”
management systems
1.2.2 # if improved This indicator was added at USAID’s request and is linked to
management systems ConJusticia Sub-IR 1.2, “Internal processes and management of
and tools adopted by FGEs and courts strengthened.”
criminal justice
institutions
1.3.1 % of cases with Indicator name and description changed to measure cases with
an investigation plan an investigation plan. The change from “cases using admissible
forensic evidence” to “cases with an investigation plan” was
made for increased clarity. The changed was based primarily on
the fact that only evidence already deemed admissible in the
intermediate hearing can be “used” in a criminal case. Likewise,
of the many pieces of evidence submitted for a given case, some
but not all may be deemed admissible and this information is only
found by reviewing individual hearing transcripts, thus
complicating data collection and measurement. The use of an
investigation plan for a case, however, both includes admissible
forensic evidence and also broadens the definition to include the
work of a wider, interdisciplinary investigation team, including
data analytics and the strategic investigation and prosecution
process as a whole and is thus considered a more appropriate
indicator of improved investigation quality. Data collection will
consist of reviewing a representative sample of open case files
and FGE records to assess a set of quality components and
criteria, including the use of an investigation plan, the use of data
analytics, integration of a GESI perspective generally for all cases
as well as for specific GBV cases.
1.4.1 # of intelligence Changes made to clarify that crime analysis units produce data
products produced and analysis but do not investigate crimes. Rather, these units
by crime analysis produce intelligence products for specialized investigation units.
units The use of data analytics for criminal investigations will be
measured as a sub-component of indicator 1.3.1 % of cases with
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 22
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

an investigation plan, which will assess different quality and

criteria components such as the use of data analytics and sound
evidence, and inclusion of a GESI perspective, among others.
1.4.2 % decrease in Changes to indicator name and description. The original
deferred court indicator was framed to seek an increase in the number of
hearings for high- hearings conducted, however more hearings does not indicate
priority cases improved capacity by the justice system to manage and resolve
high-priority cases. Deferred hearings are a primary cause of
rising numbers in hearings and represent bottlenecks in criminal
justice proceedings that negatively affect case resolution times.
The modified indicator will measure a decrease in hearings
deferred as a marker of ConJusticia’s efforts to improve
institutional capacity to avoid unnecessary or unjustified
deferrals that clog the system.
2.1.1 % decrease in Indicator name and description modified to change “case-lag” to
average time for all “average case resolution time” for added clarity in its definition
case resolutions in and to permit a clearer translation to Spanish. The name was
State Courts also modified to clarify that this measures all types of cases within
the State Court specifically, thus differentiating it from indicator
2.2.1, which measures resolution time only for high-priority
cases across both the FGE and Court. Indicator number was
updated based on adjustments to Results Framework.
2.2.1 % decrease in Indicator number was updated based on adjustments to Results
average case Framework but remains linked to ConJusticia Sub-IR 1.2,
resolution time for “Internal processes and management of FGEs and courts
high-priority cases strengthened.” Indicator name and description unchanged.
3.1.1 # of innovations Originally “Number of innovations developed and adopted
supported through through collaboration to support justice sector effectiveness,”
USG assistance with the indicator name and description were modified to align
demonstrated uptake directly to Standard Indicator 11 (IRS_Cross-cutting - STIR-11)
by the public and/or as requested by USAID.
private sector
3.2.1 # of members Indicator removed as advised by USAID given its similarity to 3.1
of professional “# of multi-sector networks related to justice sector operating”
networks supporting and 2.1 “# of agreements, protolos, and systems implemented
justice system resulting from collaboration among justice actors.” ConJusticia
strengthening efforts will continue to track the number of members of professional
networks involved in the multi-sector networks as a
disaggregation under indicator 3.1.
CC2 # of people This is a Standard Indicator (GNDR 6) added at the request of
reached by a USG USAID and will be cross-cutting.
funded intervention
providing GBV services
CC3 # of training This is a Standard Indicator (GNDR 9) added at the request of
and capacity building USAID and will be cross-cutting.
activities conducted
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 23
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

with USG assistance

that are designed to
promote the
participation of
women or the
integration of gender
perspectives in
security sector
institutions or
activities

7. ANNEXES

Annex 1: Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT)

Annex 2: Indicator Reference Table with Target State-Level Justice Institutions
Annex 3: Performance Indicator Reference Sheets (PIRS)
Annex 4: Reporting Deadlines
Annex 5: Performance Management Task Schedule

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 24

 ANNEX 1: INDICATOR PERFORMANCE TRACKING TABLE (IPTT)
Indicator Summary Table for ConJusticia
Indic- Indicator Type Indicator Std. BASELINE TARGETS NOTES Loca- Freq. Data Disaggregat
ator Status Indic. Baseline Baselin FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 LOA tion Source -ions
Type No. Date e Value Target Target Target Target Target
/ Ref. (FY21) (FY22) (FY23) (FY24)
to RF
CONTEXT
A. Level of perception of Context Active 2020 56.9 % Nati- Annual Encuesta Sex;
society's trust in onwi- Nacional de geographic
Judges de Victimizac- ___location
ión y
Percepción
sobre
Seguridad
(ENVIPE)
B. Level of perception of Context New 2020 56.0% Nati- Annual ENVIPE Sex;
society’s trust in onwi- geographic
Attorneys General de ___location
Offices These are context indicators. The project will
C. Average citizen Context Active 2019 42.8 collect and report data on these indicators Nati- Annual Americas- None
confidence that courts although they are outside its manageable onwi- Barometer,
guarantee a fair trial interests de Latin
American
Public
Opinion
Project
(LAPOP)
D. Unrecorded crime Context Active 2019 92.4% Nati- Annual ENVIPE Geographic
rate (cifra negra) onwi- ___location
de
E. Rule of Law Index for Context Active 2020 0.37 Nati- Annual World Geographic
Mexico – Criminal onwi- Justice ___location
Justice Factor de Project
CUSTOM
1. % of justice system Outcome Active 2021 TBD -- -- TBD -- TBD State Annual ConJusticia Sex;
users expressing trust Survey vulnerable
in justice institutions populations
; geographic
___location
1.1 % increase in Outcome Active 2021 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual FGE office Type of
prosecution rates for and State crime;
high-priority cases Courts geographic
records ___location
1.1.1 # of state-level Outcome Active 2020 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual FGE office Geographic
prosecution records ___location;
prioritization inclusion of
frameworks developed GESI
perspective
 PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
1.2.1 # of USG-assisted Outcome Standard DR.1. 2020 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Activity Geographic
courts with improved 5-1 records ___location
case management
systems

1.2.2 # of improved Output New 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Activity Geographic
management systems records ___location;
and tools adopted by type of
criminal justice system or
institutions tool,
institution
1.3.1 % of cases with an Outcome New 2020 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual FGE office Type of
investigation plan records crime;
geographic
___location;
inclusion of
GESI
perspective
1.4.1 # of intelligence Outcome New 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual FGE office Geographic
products produced by records ___location;
crime analysis units inclusion of
GESI
perspective
1.4.2 % decrease in Outcome New 2021 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Court Geographic
deferred court records ___location
hearings for high-
priority cases
1.5.1 % of users receiving Outcome Active 2021 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual ConJusticia Type of
updates on case status survey user; sex;
geographic
___location
2.1 # of agreements, Outcome Active 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Activity Geographic
protocols and systems records ___location;
implemented resulting inclusion of
from collaboration GESI
among justice actors perspective
2.1.1 % decrease in average Outcome Active 2020 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual State Type of
time for all case Court crime;
resolutions in State records resolution
Courts type;
Geographic
___location
2.2.1 % decrease in average Outcome New 2021 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual FGE office Type of
case resolution time and State crime;
for high-priority cases Courts geographic
records ___location

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 26

 PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
3.1 # of multi-sector Outcome Active 2020 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual 2020 Geographic
networks related to ___location;
justice sector sector
operating
3.1.1 # of innovations Outcome Active IRS_ 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Activity Geographic
supported through USG Cros records, ___location;
assistance with s- then inclusion of
demonstrated uptake by cutti MJIN GESI
the public and/or private ng - records perspective
sector STIR-
11
CROSSCUTTING
CC1 # of judicial personnel Output Active DR 1.3- 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD City Quarterly Attendance Sex;
trained with USAID 1 record and geographic
assistance training ___location;
materials topic
CC2 # of people reached Output Standard GNDR 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Activity Sex;
by a USG funded 6 records geographic
intervention providing ___location;
GBV services type of
service
CC3 # of training and capacity Output Standard GNDR 2020 0 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD State Annual Activity Geographic
building activities 9 records ___location;
conducted with USG activity type
assistance that are
designed to promote the
participation of women
or the integration of
gender perspectives in
security sector
institutions or activities

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 27

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

ANNEX 2: INDICATOR REFERENCE TABLE WITH TARGET STATE-LEVEL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONS

Indicators Measured
Institution Ref # Name
B. Level of perception of society’s trust in Attorneys General Offices (ENVIPE)

D. Unrecorded crime rate/cifra negra (ENVIPE)

1.1 % increase in prosecution rates for high-priority cases

Attorneys 1.1.1 # of state-level prosecution prioritization frameworks developed

General Offices 1.2.2 # of improved management systems and tools adopted by criminal justice institutions
(FGE)
1.3.1 % of cases with an investigation plan

1.4.1 # of intelligence products produced by crime analysis units

1.5.1 % of users receiving updates on case status

A. Level of perception of society's trust in Judges (ENVIPE)

C. Average citizen confidence that courts guarantee a fair trial (LAPOP)

1.2.1 # of USG-assisted courts with improved case management systems

1.2.2 # of improved management systems and tools adopted by criminal justice institutions
State Courts
(TSJ) 1.4.2 % decrease in deferred court hearings for high-priority cases

1.5.1 % of users receiving updates on case status

2.1.1 % decrease in average time for all case resolutions in State Courts

2.2.1 % decrease in average case resolution time for high-priority cases

E. Rule of Law Index for Mexico – Criminal Justice Factor (WJP)

1. % of justice system users expressing trust in justice institutions

2.1 # of agreements, protocols and systems implemented resulting from collaboration

among justice actors
Local 3.1 # of multi-sector networks related to justice sector operating
Systems/Inter-
3.1.1 # of innovations supported through USG assistance with demonstrated uptake by the
institutional/ public and/or private sector
Multi-sector CC1 # of judicial personnel trained with USAID assistance

CC2 # of people reached by a USG funded intervention providing GBV services

CC3 # of training and capacity building activities conducted with USG assistance that are designed to
promote the participation of women or the integration of gender perspectives in security sector
institutions or activities

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 28

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
ANNEX 3: PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEETS (PIRS)

USAID Context Indicator Reference Sheet - A

Name of Context Indicator: A. Level of perception of society's trust in Judges

Name of Relevant Result(s) (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Activity Goal: Increased
effectiveness of the Mexican criminal justice system, primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase
accountability and improve citizen perceptions of the justice sector
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The purpose of this survey is to generate information at the national level, by federal entity and
metropolitan areas of interest on the phenomenon of criminal victimization, as well as the social perception regarding public
safety and the performance of the authorities, to provide information to society and those who make public policy decisions in
these matters.

The ENVIPE survey question that is relevant to this indicator is: Nivel de percepción de confianza de la sociedad en autoridades
– Jueces

Unit of Measure: Level of perception

Data Type: Percent
Disaggregated by: Sex, geographic ___location
Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública (ENVIPE).
(https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/envipe/2020/)

Method of data collection and construction: Selection of the sample - Probabilistic: three-stage, stratified and by
conglomerates. Observation units - Selected dwellings, households, household residents and the selected person in the
household. Study population - Population aged 18 years and over. National sample size 102,043 households. Geographic
Coverage - At the National, Urban National, Rural National, federal entity and metropolitan areas of interest.
Reporting Frequency: Annual
Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TRIGGER AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: 2020 (https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/envipe/2020/)

Trigger: TBD

Rationale for Trigger: TBD

DATA QUALITY
Known Data Limitations: None to date
CHANGES TO CONTEXT INDICATOR
Changes to Indicator: Baseline timeframe updated to 2020. Disaggregated by sex and geographic ___location.
Other Notes:
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: January 15, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 29

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Context Indicator Reference Sheet - B

Name of Context Indicator: B. Level of perception of society's trust in Attorneys General Offices

Name of Relevant Result(s) (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Activity Goal: Increased
effectiveness of the Mexican criminal justice system, primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase
accountability and improve citizen perceptions of the justice sector
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The purpose of this survey is to generate information at the national level, by federal entity and
metropolitan areas of interest on the phenomenon of criminal victimization, as well as the social perception regarding public
safety and the performance of the authorities, to provide information to society and those who make public policy decisions in
these matters.

The ENVIPE survey question that is relevant to this indicator is: Nivel de percepción de confianza de la sociedad en autoridades
– Ministerio Público (MP) y Fiscalías Estatales

Unit of Measure: Level of perception

Data Type: Percent
Disaggregated by: Sex, geographic ___location
Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública (ENVIPE).
(https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/envipe/2020/)

Method of data collection and construction: Selection of the sample - Probabilistic: three-stage, stratified and by
conglomerates. Observation units - Selected dwellings, households, household residents and the selected person in the
household. Study population - Population aged 18 years and over. National sample size 102,043 households. Geographic
Coverage - At the National, Urban National, Rural National, federal entity and metropolitan areas of interest.
Reporting Frequency: Annual
Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TRIGGER AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: 2020 (https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/envipe/2020/)

Trigger: TBD

Rationale for Trigger: TBD

DATA QUALITY
Known Data Limitations: None to date
CHANGES TO CONTEXT INDICATOR
Changes to Indicator: Baseline timeframe updated to 2020. Disaggregated by sex and geographic ___location. Indicator name
and description updated to align to the ENVIPE categorization of “Attorneys General Offices” as opposed to
“Prosecutors.”
Other Notes:
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 6, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 30

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Context Indicator Reference Sheet - C

Name of Context Indicator: C. Average citizen confidence that courts guarantee a fair trial

Name of Relevant Result(s) (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Activity Goal: Increased
effectiveness of the Mexican criminal justice system, primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase
accountability and improve citizen perceptions of the justice sector
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator reflects the average citizen confidence that courts will guarantee a fair trial. This
survey question is part of the “AmericasBarometer” survey by the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). The
survey provides a tool for assessing the public’s experiences with democratic governance and assess the extent to which
citizens experience the rule of law, among other topics. The LAPOP survey question relevant to this indicator is: ¿Hasta qué
punto cree usted que los tribunales de justicia de México garantizan un juicio justo?

Unit of Measure: Average confidence

Data Type: Degree
Disaggregated by: None
Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Americas-Barometer, Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) “Cultura política de la democracia en
México…” (obtained from https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/mexico.php)

Method of data collection and construction: The LAPOP survey was conducted using a national probability sample
design of voting-age adults, with a sample size of 1,580 people involving face-to-face interviews conducted in Spanish and using
the Survey To Go software.
Reporting Frequency: Annual
Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TRIGGER AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Fieldwork was conducted by LAPOP from January 30-March 27, 2019.
(https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/mexico/AB2018-19-Mexico-Country-Report-Eng-V2-06.17.20-W-06.25.20.pdf)
Trigger: TBD

Rationale for Trigger: TBD

DATA QUALITY
Known Data Limitations: None to date
CHANGES TO CONTEXT INDICATOR
Changes to Indicator:
Other Notes:
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: February 8, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 31

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Context Indicator Reference Sheet - D

Name of Context Indicator: D. Unrecorded crime rate (cifra negra)

Name of Relevant Result(s) (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Activity Goal: Increased
effectiveness of the Mexican criminal justice system, primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase
accountability and improve citizen perceptions of the justice sector
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The purpose of this survey is to generate information at the national level, by federal entity and
metropolitan areas of interest on the phenomenon of criminal victimization, as well as the social perception regarding public
safety and the performance of the authorities, to provide information to society and those who make public policy decisions in
these matters.

The ENVIPE survey question relevant to this indicator is: percentage of crimes committed in which there was no complaint or
an investigation folder was not initiated during 2019.

Unit of Measure: percentage of crimes

Data Type: Percent
Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location
Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública (ENVIPE).
(https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/envipe/2020/doc/envipe2020_presentacion_nacional.pdf )

Method of data collection and construction: Selection of the sample - Probabilistic: three-stage, stratified and by
conglomerates. Observation units - Selected dwellings, households, household residents and the selected person in the
household. Study population - Population aged 18 years and over. National sample size 102,043 households. Geographic
Coverage - At the National, Urban National, Rural National, federal entity and metropolitan areas of interest.
Reporting Frequency: Annual
Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TRIGGER AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: 2019
(https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/envipe/2020/doc/envipe2020_presentacion_nacional.pdf )

Trigger: TBD

Rationale for Trigger: TBD

DATA QUALITY
Known Data Limitations: None to date
CHANGES TO CONTEXT INDICATOR
Changes to Indicator:
Other Notes:
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: February 8, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 32

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Context Indicator Reference Sheet - E

Name of Context Indicator: E. Rule of Law Index for Mexico – Criminal Justice Factor

Name of Relevant Result(s) (Goal, DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, Project Output, etc.): Activity Goal: Increased
effectiveness of the Mexican criminal justice system, primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase
accountability and improve citizen perceptions of the justice sector
DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index measures the rule of law based on the experiences
and perceptions of the general public and in-country legal practitioners and experts worldwide. The Index provides scores and
rankings based on eight factors: Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental
Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice. Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1
indicating the strongest adherence to the rule of law. This context indicator will focus on the criminal justice factor of this index
for Mexican States.

Unit of Measure: Level of perception

Data Type: Index Score
Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location
Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
Data Source: WJP Rule of Law Index (https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-ROLI-2020-
Online_0.pdf)

Method of data collection and construction: Index scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the strongest adherence
to the rule of law. The scores and rankings of the eight factors and 44 sub-factors of the Index draw from two sources of
data collected by the WJP: 1. A General Population Poll (GPP) using a representative sample of 1,0001 respondents in each
country and jurisdiction; 2. Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) consisting of closed-ended questions completed
by in-country legal practitioners, experts, and academics.
Reporting Frequency: Annual
Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TRIGGER AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: 2020 (https://worldjusticeproject.mx/indice-de-estado-de-derecho-en-mexico-2020-2021/)

Trigger: TBD
Rationale for Trigger: TBD
DATA QUALITY
Known Data Limitations: None to date
CHANGES TO CONTEXT INDICATOR
Changes to Indicator:
Other Notes:
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: February 8, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 33

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet - 1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1. % of justice system users expressing trust in justice institutions

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Activity Goal: Increased effectiveness of the
Mexican criminal justice system, primarily at the state level, in order to reduce impunity, increase accountability and improve
citizen perceptions of the justice sector.

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome/Impact

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent of justice system users in target Mexican states who express trust
in the justice system via the ConJusticia sample-based survey. On the survey, respondents will be asked ‘to what extent do you
trust justice institutions?’ and will be asked to respond via a Likert even-point scale. Specific questions on user perceptions of
Attorneys General Offices and State Courts will also be asked.
Numerator: Number of justice system users responding that they trust justice institutions
Denominator: Total number of users surveyed

Unit of Measure: Percent of users

Data Type: Percent

Disaggregated by: Sex, applicable vulnerable populations, geographic ___location

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: ConJusticia User Survey

Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia will conduct annual sample-based user surveys.
Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Indicator modified to focus solely on justice system users as opposed to the general public.
Reporting frequency changed to annual and disaggregation added to track sex, applicable vulnerable populations, and
geographic ___location.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 6, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 34

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.1 Percent increase in prosecution rates for high priority cases

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): IR 1 Individual justice sector institutions
prioritize and fully prosecute higher-level serious criminal cases

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent increase over baseline value in prosecution rates specifically for
high priority cases. ‘High-priority cases’ are in this case defined as those cases that if properly addressed, can have the largest
impact on citizen satisfaction with the justice system. They include serious and high-impact cases as well as less serious activities
due to public concern as determined by prioritization processes.
Annual prosecution rates for serious crimes (such as homicides) are calculated by obtaining the total number of indictments
divided by the total number of investigations conducted by targeted investigation and prosecution units, or for priority cases as
defined in state prioritization frameworks. For serious crimes, indictments will be calculated as vinculación al proceso, although
the program will collect data on the following additional data points: judicialización; formulación de imputación; and acusación, to
provide an integral analysis of the prosecutorial process. For other types of crimes, such as robbery or domestic violence, the
calculation is the number of cases disposed through alternative resolutions (i.e., agreements or pre-trial diversion) plus those
that reach indictments divided by the total number of investigations conducted for the given priority cases. In order to determine
percent change in prosecution rates, the following calculation will be used:

Numerator: (prosecution rate for high priority cases in current year) – (Baseline value of prosecution rate for high priority
cases)
Denominator: Baseline value of prosecution rate for high priority cases

The baseline value will be calculated using all open investigations of priority cases in a given calendar year regardless of the year
the case was opened.
Unit of Measure: Percent increase in prosecution rates

Data Type: Percent

Disaggregated by: Type of crime (homicide, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, domestic violence, other); Geographic
___location

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office and State Courts records

Method of data collection and construction: Activity staff will undertake a desk review of FGE office and State Courts
records, then content analysis and physical verification.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 35

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Description updated to clarify at what point indictments will be calculated and that all open
investigations will be counted regardless of the year the case was opened.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 12, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.1.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.1.1 Number of state-level prosecution prioritization frameworks developed

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.1: Improved capacity of FGEs to
prioritize cases based on criminal prosecution prioritization frameworks

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of prosecution prioritization frameworks developed on the state-
level. Prosecution prioritization frameworks refer to frameworks that order criminal cases based on prosecution strategies that
include factors such as incidence, urgency for resolution, connection to known past offenders or criminal structures and type
of victim. This may include but not be limited to strategic criminal prosecution policies and will consider only state-level
frameworks.
Prioritization is conducted with public participation and based on citizen perceptions. Priority rankings determine how justice
sector entities should apportion their limited resources. By building the internal capacity of FGE and Courts to prioritize and
fully prosecute high-priority crimes and improving coordination and collaboration of various justice sector institutions on policy,
operations, resource allocations, information sharing, tools and process around this priority, the justice system will improve
prosecutions and reduce impunity. This indicator will also consider the inclusion of a GESI perspective by tracking the
prioritization frameworks that prioritize or provide differentiated treatment for individuals from groups who, due to historical
and social contexts, have been systematically and structurally discriminated against. These include women, girls and other
vulnerable populations such as LGBTQI+, people with disabilities, indigenous populations, and other marginalized groups. A
prioritization framework may be designed specifically for Gender Based Violence or may integrate a GESI perspective into the
prioritization of other types of cases. This prioritization emphasis elevates the relevance of working with FGEs and the rest of
the justice system and local system stakeholders to develop effective participatory prioritization frameworks. A framework will
be counted once it has been finalized

Unit of Measure: Number of Prosecution Prioritization frameworks

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location, inclusion of GESI perspective

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office records

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 36
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia staff working closely with FGEs will collect a copy of each
completed Prosecution Prioritization framework, establishing a list of criteria to establish whether a GESI perspective is
integrated.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Change in Definition for added clarity. Change to indicator description, data collection plan and
reporting frequency. Disaggregation added regarding whether frameworks include consideration of GESI perspective,
whether that be an explicit focus on Gender Based Violence or the integration of GESI considerations throughout a
framework for other types of crime.

Other Notes (optional): Description modified to clarify that prioritization frameworks may include but are not limited to
strategic criminal prosecution policies.

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.2.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.2.1 # of USG-assisted courts with improved case management systems
Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.2: Internal processes and management
of FGEs and courts strengthened
Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome
Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): Improved is defined as a case management system that has reduced the number of days required for a
case to be dealt with by the appropriate actor within the system, whether it be going to trial or otherwise resolved.
Types of functional areas within case management systems include: controlling forms; establishing record control; case
processing and record updating; scheduling case events; controlling and storing final records; and reporting management
information.
Without reliable data, courts cannot deliver timely justice, control or monitor their own operations, or explain their operations
to citizens. The lack of information on court operations makes citizens suspicious about the fairness, transparency, and integrity
of the rule of law. Closed, secretive justice systems create the perception and often the reality of favoritism, malfeasance, and
denial of basic rights. Thus, the introduction of high-quality court management information systems affects not only efficiency,
but also effectiveness. It can have a significant impact on central ROL issues, such as human rights, access to justice, transparency,
and development of democratic institutions and society. USG assistance for an improved case management system will lead to
confidence in the judicial system which leads to increased confidence in the government; It can also increase confidence in the
economic environment.
Unit of Measure: Number of State Courts
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 37
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location, including state and judicial district

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): USG Standard Indicator DR.1.5-1. The number of improved case
management systems could provide information useful in project planning because it indicates the capacity of a given court
system. It is also useful in reporting purposes to show level of effort to improve case management systems.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office and State Courts records

Method of data collection and construction: At the start of the Activity baseline values will be established by examining
FGE office and state court records to determine the average case resolution time in high-priority cases for the past 12 months.
Annually, FGE office and state court records will be examined to determine the average case resolution time for the past 12
months. These will be inserted in the calculation mentioned above in the precise definition for this indicator

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021
Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to indicator: Indicator name and description modified to align to USG Standard Indicator DR1.5-1
Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.2.2

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.2.2 # of improved management systems and tools adopted by criminal justice
institutions
Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.2: Internal processes and management
of FGEs and courts strengthened
Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome
Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the total number of improved management systems and tools with
demonstrated adoption by target justice institutions. Systems and tools are defined as actionable elements towards the
improvement of institutional performance, such as new or reformed laws, policy changes, and/or procedures, protocols,
methodologies or information technology that enhance organizational models, streamline processes, and/or promote data-
driven decision making and the implementation of best practices and innovations.
Adoption means any management system or tool, at any institutional level, that is newly drafted or revised and has received
official approval (legislation/decree) by the relevant institutional authority, even if not yet implemented.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 38

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Unit of Measure: Improved management systems and tools

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location, type of system or tool, inclusion of GESI perspective, institution

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): USAID-proposed indicator

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office and State Courts records, ConJusticia activity records
Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia will work closely with State Courts and FGEs to track the
development, approval and adoption of improved case management systems and tools.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to indicator: Indicator name and description modified to change “case-lag” to “case resolution time” for added
clarity. Disaggregation added to consider inclusion of GESI perspective, institution, and type of tool.
Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 28, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.3.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.3.1 % of cases with an investigation plan

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 2.2: Enhanced collaboration among
prosecutors, police, and investigators to improve the speed and quality of investigations and prosecutions for high-priority
crimes

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 39

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent of high priority cases using an investigation plan, especially those
utilizing data analytics based on scientific methods such as ballistics, blood tests, DNA tests, and including evidence provided
psychologists, criminologists, finance experts, etc. An investigation plan is defined as a written strategy developed prior to
conducting a criminal investigation that presents a methodical and organized presentation of existing information and data on
a given case that formulates a hypothesis for its investigation in support of its prompt resolution. The inclusion of a GESI
perspective will also be analyzed. Based on a representative sample of open casefiles, the indicator will be calculated as
follows:
Numerator: Number of cases using investigation plan during the last 12 months

Denominator: Number of total cases open during the last 12 months

Unit of Measure: Percent of cases

Data Type: Percent

Disaggregated by: Type of crime (homicide, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, domestic violence, other); Geographic
___location, inclusion of GESI perspective.

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office records

Method of data collection and construction: Activity staff will undertake a desk review of FGE office records to
randomly select representative sample of active case files, then content analysis and physical verification. Regarding GESI
integration, both investigation plans that incorporate a gender perspective and/or use of gender-related tools regardless of
type of crime, as well as investigations specifically for GBV-related cases will be counted.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021.

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Indicator name and description changed to measure cases with an investigation plan, with
consideration for the use of data analytics and incorporation of a GESI perspective. Data source updated to reflect only
FGE office records and data collection plan updated for clarity.

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 40

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Other Notes (optional): The change from “cases using admissible forensic evidence” to “cases with an investigation plan”
was made for increased clarity. The changed was based primarily on the fact that only evidence already deemed admissible
in the intermediate hearing can be “used” in a criminal case. Likewise, of the many pieces of evidence submitted for a
given case, some but not all may be deemed admissible and this information is found in reviewing individual hearing
transcripts, thus complicating data collection and measurement. The use of an investigation plan for a case, however, both
includes admissible forensic evidence and also broadens the definition to include the work of a wider, interdisciplinary
investigation team and the strategic investigation and prosecution process as a whole and is thus considered a more
appropriate indicator of improved investigation quality.

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.4.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.4.1 # of intelligence products produced by crime analysis units

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.4 Improved data tracking and analytics
capacity of FGE and courts to better manage and resolve high-priority cases

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of intelligence products created by crime analysis units for use
in crime investigations. Intelligence products are those reports, data visualizations, and other information pieces created by
crime analysis units using data, information and intelligence to identify trends, criminal patterns, hotspots, criminal
organizations, etc. in an effort to identify key players who should be prosecuted. FGEs vary in their capacity to make proper
use of data to enhance their performance. Technology systems implementation varies widely throughout Mexico and there is
variable capacity of local stakeholders to understand which data is important to collect, process, and use to make decisions. It
is important to note that crime analysis units produce data and intelligence products to inform investigations but do not
conduct investigations, as that is the role of specialized investigation units for which the intelligence products are designed.

Unit of Measure: Number of intelligence products

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office records, activity records

Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia will assess the level of existing capacity and commitment of
each target analysis unit to use data analytics to inform the investigation and prosecution of high-priority cases and track the
creation of intelligence products as well as their use under indicator 2.2.1.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 41

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Change to indicator name, description, and data collection plan.

Other Notes (optional): Changes made to clarify that it is the specialized investigation units or teams (including task
forces), not the crime analysis unit, that conducts investigations using data analytics. The crime analysis unit produces data
and intelligence products but does not investigate crimes.

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.4.2

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.4.2 % decrease in deferred court hearings of high-priority cases

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.4 Improved data tracking and analytics
capacity of FGE and courts to better manage and resolve high-priority cases

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent decrease from the baseline value of court hearings of high-priority
cases deferred. In this case, a court hearing is a dispute between two parties that is decided in a court of law. Deferred means
that the hearing was postponed. Deferrals can be attributable to any of the parties involved and this indicator will seek to
disaggregate to the extent possible the cause for deferrals so as to identify and analyze those that are unjustified, aiming to
reduce these instances through program technical assistance and other court management interventions.
Numerator: (number of court hearings of high-priority cases deferred in current year) – (Baseline value of court hearings of
high-priority cases deferred)
Denominator: Baseline value of court hearings of high-priority cases deferred

Unit of Measure: Percent decrease of court hearings deferred

Data Type: Percent

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location, Type of Hearing, cause for deferral

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Court records

Method of data collection and construction: Activity staff will review Courts records to determine

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 42

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Changes to indicator name and description. Added sub-intermediate result measured.

Other Notes (optional): The original indicator was framed to seek an increase in the number of hearings conducted,
however more hearings do not indicate improved capacity by the State Court to manage and resolve high-priority cases.
Deferred hearings are a primary cause of rising numbers in hearings, and also represent bottlenecks in criminal justice
proceedings that negatively affect case resolution times. The changes to measure a decrease in hearings deferred seeks to
measure a key factor in criminal justice effectiveness as well as improved capacity by the institution to process high-
priority cases. ConJusticia’s work aims to reduce is the unjustified or preventable deferrals, such as those requested by
judges due to personal preferences, or those caused by failed court notifications (i.e. when parties do not present at a
hearing because they were improperly notified of their court date).

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 3, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 1.5.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 1.5.1 % of users receiving updates on case status

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.5: Improved communication,
transparency, & accountability of justice sector institutions through proactive engagement with users and the public

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percentage of users of the criminal justice system who know about their
cases from direct communication originating from the FGE or Courts. Direct users of the system include the accused, victims,
and their families.
Numerator: Number of users surveyed who indicate they received updates on the status of their case via direct
communication originating from the FGE or Courts
Denominator: Total number of users of the criminal justice system surveyed

Unit of Measure: Percent of users

Data Type: Percent

Disaggregated by: Type of user; Sex; Geographic ___location

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: ConJusticia survey

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 43

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia will conduct anonymous and simple user surveys in FGEs and
courts asking users whether they consider the information they received on their case to be timely and effective. The survey
will be a short and simple tool likely implemented through a mobile application with questions and space for comments that
will be available to users after each visit to the FGE and court.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Reporting frequency changed from quarterly to annually.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 3, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 2.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 2.1 # of agreements, protocols and systems implemented resulting from collaboration
among justice actors

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): IR2 Justice sector actors within the various
institutions collaborate across institutions resulting in improved prosecutions and reductions in impunity

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of agreements or protocols or systems implemented resulting
from collaboration among justice actors. Justice actors include but are not limited to judges, police officers, prosecutors. Some
examples could include protocols for evidence collection, protocols for investigation of crimes against female victims, protocols
that help in the collection of evidence, agreements reached under 100-DC. Agreements, protocols and systems will only be
counted once they have been put into place and acted upon or used and those related to the incorporation or mainstreaming
of a GESI perspective will be identified and highlighted.

Unit of Measure: Number of agreements, protocols, and systems

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Type (agreement, protocol, system), Geographic ___location, inclusion of GESI perspective

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 44

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Activity records

Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia staff will review Activity records collected to determine which
agreements, protocols and systems were planned and follow up with justice sector actors to confirm which have been
implemented and how. GESI-related agreements, protocols and systems will also be counted and reported.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Reporting frequency changed from quarterly to annually. Disaggregation added regarding
consideration of GESI perspective in agreements, protocols and systems implemented.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: February 22, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 2.1.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 2.1.1. % decrease in average time for all case resolutions in State Courts

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 2.1: Mechanisms for inter-institutional
collaboration strengthened

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the percent change from baseline values of average time in days/months for
case resolutions within the State Court for all types of crimes. This indicator particularly focuses on the conviction process
within the judicial system, or the final resolution determined by the judge of what happens with a case. Final resolution could
be conviction or alternative dispute resolution, among others. The indicator seeks to measure structural and systemic
improvements that are reflected in the Court overall, and thus they local justice system more widely. If a case is well prepared
and focused and worked on collaboratively with other actors involved, such as the victims, defense council, police, etc. then the
resolution should be streamlined, and frivolity eliminated. This indicator will measure the process beginning from when the case
has entered the judiciary stage, i.e., has been filed with the court, until resolution.
Numerator: (average time for case resolution during the current year) – (Baseline value of average time for case resolution)
Denominator: Baseline value of average time for case resolution
Unit of Measure: Percent reduction in average time

Data Type: Percent

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 45

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Disaggregated by: Type of crime (homicide, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, domestic violence, other); Type of
resolution; Geographic ___location

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: State Courts records
Method of data collection and construction: Activity staff will undertake a desk review of State Courts records, then
content analysis and physical verification.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021
Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to indicator: Indicator name and description modified for clarity.
Other Notes (optional): This indicator measures all types of crimes resolved in the State Court only, and is thus distinct
from Indicator 1.2.1, which measures case resolution time between the FGE and Court, but for only high-priority cases.

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: May 3, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 2.2.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 2.2.1 % decrease in average case resolution time for high-priority cases
Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 1.2: Internal processes and management
of FGEs and courts strengthened
Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome
Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the reduction in average case resolution time for high-priority cases from
baseline values collected at the start of the Activity. Resolution time in this case means the average amount of time that a high-
priority case spends, in days, within the internal pipelines of both the FGE and State Court, beginning with the apertura de
carpeta de investigación. It is the speed at which an institution processes a case from the initial date when it first enters the
system, i.e., the crime has been assigned an investigative casefile number by the FGE, until the final date when it reaches an
appropriate resolution in the State Court. The legal definition of what constitutes a resolution will be determined by type of
crime or criminal phenomenon. ‘High-priority cases’ are in this case defined as those cases that if properly addressed, can have
the largest impact on citizen satisfaction with the justice system. They include serious and high-impact cases as well as less
serious activities due to public concern as determined by prioritization processes, which will vary in each target state.
Numerator: (Average time for case resolution in high-priority cases during the current year) – (Baseline value of average time
for case resolution in high-priority cases)
Denominator: Baseline value of average time for case resolution in high-priority cases
MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 46
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Unit of Measure: Percent decrease in average case resolution time

Data Type: Percent

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location, type of crime

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: FGE office and State Courts records

Method of data collection and construction: At the start of the Activity baseline values will be established by examining
FGE office and state court records to determine the average case resolution time in high-priority cases for the past 12 months.
Annually, FGE office and state court records will be examined to determine the average case resolution time for the past 12
months. These will be inserted in the calculation mentioned above in the precise definition for this indicator

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021
Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes to indicator: Indicator name and description modified to change “case-lag” to “case resolution time” for added
clarity.
Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 3.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 3.1 # of multi-sector networks related to justice sector operating

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): IR 3: Durable partnerships among key local
stakeholders in the justice sector strengthened

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? No

DESCRIPTION

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 47

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Precise Definition(s): This indicator measures the number of multi-sector networks related to justice sector operating. In
order to be counted, a network, or a group or system of interconnected people should represent at least two different sectors
(i.e. justice and the private sector, civil society, or academia). Within their work together, this network should have a focus on
the justice sector. Operating in this case means that the network is conducting communications, meetings, gathering people
together (virtually or in person) to discuss and make collective changes around the justice sector. Key stake holders here
include GOM, individual states, civil society, and the private sector. The number of members of professional networks
supporting justice system strengthening efforts within these networks will also be tracked. One overriding objective of the
project is sustainability and this indicator will illustrate local buy-in and local players becoming the owners of the new ways of
doing things within the justice sector.

Unit of Measure: Number of multi-sector networks

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location, sector representation

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Activity records

Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia staff will review Activity records collected to determine which
networks have been organized or planned and follow up to confirm which are operating. The sectors represented within each
network and the number of members of professional networks supporting justice system strengthening efforts within these
networks will also be tracked.

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: The baseline for this indicator is identified as to-be-determined (TBD) as ConJusticia will need to
conduct original research to establish these figures. This will take place in 2021.

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Indicator description modified to include virtual communications given that networks may be
operating under remote working conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting frequency changed from
quarterly to annual. Data collection plan updated to consider sector representation. Disaggregation added to track sector
representation.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 48

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – 3.1.1

Number and Name of Indicator: 3.1.1 # of innovations supported through USG assistance with demonstrated uptake by
the public and/or private sector

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Sub-IR 3.1: Networks of justice sector
institutions, civil society, academia, and private sector for developing local solutions strengthened

Is this an Outcome of Output? Outcome

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes (IRS_Cross-cutting - STIR-11)

DESCRIPTION

Precise Definition(s): This indicator will measure the number of innovations, both technology-based and those which do not
include technology, that support justice sector effectiveness. For the purposes of this indicator, innovations should also include
only those that are developed and adopted through collaboration between different players. These innovations can come in
many forms including collaborative problem solving, solutions design, and different types of implementation. Innovations will be
counted once they have been developed and adopted. Adoption, or uptake, means any innovation at any government level, that
is newly developed and has received official approval (legislation/decree/internal regulations/standard operating procedures) by
the relevant authority (institutional leadership).
Unit of Measure: Number of innovations

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Geographic ___location; inclusion of GESI perspective

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): This is a USG standard indicator (IRS_Cross-cutting - STIR-11)

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Activity records, then MJIN records

Method of data collection and construction: ConJusticia staff will review Activity records to determine. Before the end
of ConJusticia, these innovations should be maintained at the MJIN. Once this happens, this should be the data source

Reporting Frequency: Annual

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: Indicator name and description changed to align with USG Standard Indicator IRS_Cross-cutting -
STIR-11. Reporting frequency changed from quarterly to annually. Disaggregation added to consider whether innovations
include GESI perspective.

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2021

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 49

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – CC1

Number and Name of Indicator: CC1. # of judicial personnel trained with USAID assistance (DR 1.3-1)

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Crosscutting - all Activity IRs and sub-IRs

Is this an Outcome of Output? Output

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes, DR 1.3-1. For years 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

DESCRIPTION

USAID’s Precise Definition(s): Judicial personnel includes judges, magistrates, prosecutors, advocates, inspectors and court
staff. Training refers to all training or education events whether short-term or long-term, in-country or abroad.

People attending the same type of training, but on different subjects can be counted twice. Narrative reports should indicate
the type of training, who the training is for, level of training, duration of training, what constitutes completion. It is required that
trainings follow a documented curriculum with stated objectives and/or expected competencies; all data should be sex-
disaggregated; and where possible, training should meet national or international standards.

Unit of Measure: Number of judicial personnel

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Sex; Geographic ___location; Topic

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional):

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Attendance record and training materials

Method of data collection and construction: Attendance records and training materials are collected for all Activity
training courses

Reporting Frequency: Quarterly

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: N/A

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: September 8, 2020

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 50

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – CC2

Number and Name of Indicator: CC2. # of people reached by a USG-funded intervention providing GBV services (e.g.,
health, legal, psycho-social counseling, shelters, hotlines, other)

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Crosscutting - all Activity IRs and sub-IRs

Is this an Outcome of Output? Output

Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes, GNDR 6

DESCRIPTION

USAID’s Precise Definition(s): This indicator is a count of the individuals served by GBV services.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is an umbrella term for any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will, and that is
based on socially ascribed (gender) differences between males and females. Forms of gender-based violence include, but are
not limited to, domestic or intimate partner violence; rape as a weapon of war; sexual violence and abuse; female infanticide;
psychological or emotional abuse; sexual harassment or violence in the workplace or in educational institutions; and harmful
traditional practices including female genital mutilation/cutting, honor crimes, early marriage, forced marriage, bride kidnapping,
and dowry-related violence; and violence based on sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI).

Examples of type of service include:

• Legal: Legal advice or accompaniment for survivors of GBV seeking protection or redress through the justice system; advice
and assistance regarding divorce laws or restraining orders; remediation for property disputes, among others.
• Health: Includes GBV screening, GBV referral programs that connect GBV survivors with appropriate psychosocial services,
legal services, or economic support, and examination and treatment services for rape survivors.
• Psycho-social counseling
• Economic: Skills training or income-generation activities to help establish/re-establish livelihoods for survivors and their
families.
• Shelters: Activities to establish or rehabilitate centers where survivors of GBV can seek shelter, information, or services.
• Hotlines
Individuals reached by mass media interventions are not counted in this indicator.
Unit of Measure: Number of individuals

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Sex; geographic ___location, 7type of service

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): USG Standard Indicator GNDR 6. Information generated by this
indicator will be used to monitor and report on achievements linked to broader outcomes of gender equality and female
empowerment and will be used for planning and reporting purposes by Agency-level, bureau-level and in-country program
managers. Specifically, this indicator will inform required annual reporting or reviews of the USAID Gender Equality and
Female Empowerment Policy; Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017; and the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to
Gender-Based Violence Globally, as well as Joint Strategic Plan reporting in the APP/APR, and Bureau or Office portfolio
reviews. Additionally, the information will inform a wide range of gender-related public reporting and communications
products, and facilitate responses to gender-related inquiries from internal and external stakeholders such as Congress,
NGOs, and international organizations.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Activity records

Method of data collection and construction: Activity records such as attendance lists will be maintained for all relevant
gender activities.

Reporting Frequency: Annually

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 51
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)
Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: N/A

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2020

USAID Performance Indicator Reference Sheet – CC3

Number and Name of Indicator: CC3. # of training and capacity building activities conducted with USG assistance that
are designed to promote the participation of women or the integration of gender perspectives in security sector
institutions or activities

Name of Result Measured (DO, IR, sub-IR, Project Purpose, etc.): Crosscutting - all Activity IRs and sub-IRs
Is this an Outcome of Output? Output
Is this a Performance Plan and Report Indicator? Yes, GNDR 9. This indicator is a standard gender indicator and links
primarily to Program Areas PS.9 (Citizen Security and Law Enforcement) and DR.2.5 (Executive Authority - Security
Sector-Civilian).
DESCRIPTION

USAID’s Precise Definition(s): This indicator counts the number of USG-funded activities that promote: the participation
of women in security sector institutions and activities; the integration of gender perspectives, needs, and priorities in security
sector initiatives or activities; or, the increased ability of individuals or institutions in the security sector to address the distinct
needs and priorities of males and females.
The activity will count under this indicator if the activity’s primary objective is to accomplish the above objectives or if the
activity contains the above objectives as a secondary objective (e.g., peacekeeping pre-deployment training event with a gender
needs/gender-based violence (GBV) block of instruction). Security sector institutions in this case include the FGE and Courts.
In addition, the training initiatives include but are not limited to training events (i.e., workshops, courses, and seminars) as well
as projects that produce tangible training documents (i.e., program of instruction (POI), manuals & publications).
Examples of training activities:
• Instructional workshop for police units on appropriate methods for engaging with survivors of gender-based violence
• Development of manual or action plan for engaging women in a national security sector reform agenda or initiative
• Community outreach campaigns focused on improving women’s access to security sector services (e.g., radio, television,
newspaper or other outlets, including community meetings
Examples of capacity building initiatives:
• Professional development or mentoring program for new female police or military personnel
• Establishing procedures to assess and improve working conditions for female police officers

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 52

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Unit of Measure: Number of activities

Data Type: Integer

Disaggregated by: Sex; Geographic ___location

Rationale or Justification for indicator (optional): USG Standard Indicator GNDR 9. Information generated by this
indicator will be used to monitor and report on achievements linked to broader outcomes of gender equality and female
empowerment and will be used for planning and reporting purposes by Agency-level, bureau-level and in-country program
managers. Specifically, this indicator will inform required annual reporting or reviews of the USAID Gender Equality and
Female Empowerment Policy; Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017; and the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to
Gender-Based Violence Globally, as well as Joint Strategic Plan reporting in the APP/APR, and Bureau or Office portfolio
reviews. Additionally, the information will inform a wide range of gender-related public reporting and communications
products, and facilitate responses to gender-related inquiries from internal and external stakeholders such as Congress,
NGOs, and international organizations.

PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION

Data Source: Activity records

Method of data collection and construction: Activity records including agendas, presentations, and training materials will
be maintained for all relevant gender activities.

Reporting Frequency: Annually

Individual(s) responsible at USAID: COR on ConJusticia contract

TARGETS AND BASELINE

Baseline Timeframe: Baseline at the start of Activity is 0

Rationale for Targets (optional):

DATA QUALITY ISSUES

Dates of Previous Data Quality Assessments and name of reviewer: N/A

Date of Future Data Quality Assessments (optional): August 2021

Known Data Limitations: None to date

CHANGES TO INDICATOR

Changes to indicator: N/A

Other Notes (optional):

THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: April 21, 2020

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN 53

PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

ANNEX 4: REPORTING DEADLINES

Reporting Period Report Due Date

FY 2020 Q4 Quarterly Progress Report 10/31/2020

FY 2020 Q4 Financial Report 10/31/2020

FY 2021 Q1 Quarterly Progress Report 1/31/2021

FY 2021 Q1 Financial Report 1/31/2021

FY 2021 Q2 Quarterly Progress Report 4/30/2021

FY 2021 Q2 Financial Report 4/30/2021

FY 2021 Q3 Quarterly Progress Report 7/31/2021

FY 2021 Q3 Financial Report 7/31/2021

FY 2021 Annual Progress Report 10/31/2021

FY 2021 Q4 Financial Report 10/31/2021

FY 2022 Q1 Quarterly Progress Report 1/31/2022

FY 2022 Q1 Financial Report 1/31/2022

FY 2022 Q2 Quarterly Progress Report 4/30/2022

FY 2022 Q2 Financial Report 4/30/2022

FY 2022 Q3 Quarterly Progress Report 7/31/2022

FY 2022 Q3 Financial Report 7/31/2022

FY 2022 Annual Progress Report 10/31/2022

FY 2022 Q4 Financial Report 10/31/2022

FY 2023 Q1 Quarterly Progress Report 1/31/2023

FY 2023 Q1 Financial Report 1/31/2023

FY 2023 Q2 Quarterly Progress Report 4/30/2023

FY 2023 Q2 Financial Report 4/30/2023

FY 2023 Q3 Quarterly Progress Report 7/31/2023

FY 2023 Q3 Financial Report 7/31/2023

FY 2023 Annual Progress Report 10/31/2023

FY 2023 Q4 Financial Report 10/31/2023

FY 2024 Q1 Quarterly Progress Report 1/31/2024

FY 2024 Q1 Financial Report 1/31/2024

FY 2024 Q2 Quarterly Progress Report 4/30/2024

FY 2024 Q2 Financial Report 4/30/2024

FY 2024 Q3 Quarterly Progress Report 7/31/2024

FY 2024 Q3 Financial Report 7/31/2024

FY 2024 Annual Progress Report 10/31/2024

FY 2024 Q4 Financial Report 10/31/2024

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN
54
PROGRAMA PARA EL FORTALECIMIENTO DE INSTITUCIONES DE JUSTICIA PENAL ESTATAL (CONJUSTICIA)

Reporting Period Report Due Date

FY 2025 Q1 Quarterly Progress Report 1/31/2025

FY 2025 Q1 Financial Report 1/31/2025

FY 2025 Q2 Quarterly Progress Report 4/30/2025

FY 2025 Q2 Financial Report 4/30/2025

FY 2025 Draft Final Activity Report 6/23/2025

FY 2025 Q3 Financial Report 7/31/2025

FY 2025 Final Activity Report 8/23/2025

MONITORING, EVALUATION AND LEARNING PLAN

55
ANNEX 5: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TASK SCHEDULE

Activity Date/Duration Comments

YR 1: October 2020, January 2021, April 2021, July 2021

YR 2: January 2022, April 2022, July 2022
Quarterly Report Activity staff with
Preparation YR 3: January 2023, April 2023, July 2023 CoP review
YR 4: January 2024, April 2024, July 2024
YR 5: January 2025, April 2025

October 31, 2021

Annual Report October 31, 2022 Activity staff with
Preparation CoP review
October 31, 2023
October 31, 2024
Final Report Activity staff with
Preparation August 23, 2025 CoP review

YR 1: April 2020, July 2020, January 2021

Quarterly
assessments of data YR 2: April 2021, July 2021, January 2022 M&E staff with
collected to ensure Senior M&E
YR 3: April 2022, July 2022, January 2023
fidelity to indicator Manager review
definitions YR 4: April 2023, July 2023, January 2024
YR 5: April 2024, July 2024