Final Internal Performance Review Toolkit

Download the introduction ▸
Download the long-duration-programme toolkit (14.9mb ZIP) ▸
Download the short-duration-programme toolkit (14.6mb ZIP) ▸

Chrome users: If Chrome doesn't download the zip file as a zip file, you can right-click the zip file link and select Save link as and approve the file for downloading.

About the Toolkit  

Mercy Corps’ Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) minimum standards state that all programmes must conduct an Internal Performance Review (IPR) at the end of the programme; this is the “Final” Internal Performance Review (FIPR).  

The FIPR is a programme evaluation methodology that taps deep into the collective experiences and knowledge of the team members that design and implement the programme’s interventions. It was also designed as an evaluation capacity strengthening tool for MEL and non-MEL programme staff. For this reason, it is conducted by the programme team, internally, and undertaken for internal use at the programme and organisational levels.

Because the FIPR does not collect primary data with participants, should a more traditional final (programme/performance) evaluation be required for the programme, one need only add a few elements to the SOW for the FIPR to fulfill those additional evaluation requirements. Having completed an FIPR before an external (final) evaluation will assure a smoother, faster and more complete (external) evaluation. Thus, none of the time and labour expended to conduct the FIPR is ever wasted.  

What is new in version 2 of the toolkit?

Version 1 of the FIPR toolkit was released in December 2022 and Version 2 in August 2024. V2 improves and simplifies nearly all of the V1 tools and adds several new ones, including facilitator guidance for running Small Group Discussions (SGDs), extensive hints and tips which make it easier to use FIPR templates, and an expanded scoring system which captures more granularity in the levels of performance assessed. Furthermore, there are now two variants of the toolkit, one for long-duration programmes (programmes with > 2 year original implementation period) and the other for short-duration ones (≤ 2 years). All revisions and additions are based on feedback from users of the V1 toolkit.

Contents  

Tool #1: FIPR Generalised Events  

This tool provides the user with a general understanding of the events involved in completing an FIPR and the sequencing of those events. These events are now more explicit and comprehensive than those in V1. They are also organised within four phases, instead of three, and suggest the time period during which each phase should be completed. Furthermore, the tool can now be edited by the user to construct a monitorable FIPR work-plan.  

Tool #2: FIPR Scope of Work Template

The SOW prepares the programme team to conduct the FIPR. It should be completed collaboratively by the programme leads, MEL staff, and key technical staff. The SOW template helps the team: (a) describe the criteria used for programme inclusion; (b) operationally define programme interventions and when/where they were implemented; (c) document the programme’s indicators and targets and contextual data sources; (d) document the assumptions on which the intervention was designed, (e) document if there were major shifts in the strategy and/or interventions offered, (f) define a schedule for completing the FIPR and its constituent tasks, (g) provide an inventory of deliverables. It also provides the fixed objectives of the FIPR, formulated in such a way that the inherent learning question that each evokes is clear to all parties.

Tool #3: FIPR Inception Report Template  

This document details an easy-to-use, step-by-step process for writing an FIPR inception report, covering the purpose of the inception period, the quality and completeness of documents, assumptions of the programme interventions, sustainability, GEDSI, SADD and community accountability. The template reduces the LOE required by referencing fixed sections from the SOW on the work plan, objectives and learning questions. Furthermore, unless the programme opts for a more complex methodology, the fixed ‘Core Methods’ section can be used as a ‘cookie cutter’ set text for all FIPRs.

Tool #4: FIPR Report Template

This template provides a structure that ensures consistency across various FIPRs so we can compare them over time. The Report Template also clarifies what the readers should expect to find, and how the content should be organised to meet the needs of various stakeholders. It guides the FIPR lead with the approach to analysis and how to summarise and present the findings.

It is organised in nine sections: (1) Executive summary; (2) Introduction (description of the programme that can be taken from the SOW and Inception report); (3) Progress assessment (implementation against work plans); (4) Performance assessment (achievements against targets while considering context, assumptions and other data and evidence; (5) Unintended outcomes; (6) Scalability and replicability; (7) Sustainability; (8) Value for money (optional in an FPR); and (9) Lessons learned.

Tool #5: Actuals vs Targets (templates and guide)

The updated Actuals vs Targets template includes several improvements to make it easier to assess programme performance. In particular, it now has five ratings instead of three (‘Extremely Below’, ‘Below’, ‘Met’, ‘Above’ and ‘Extremely Above’), which capture a wider range programme performance. It also automatically calculates these ratings and generates visually appealing, exportable summary tables, making the overall process of assessing actuals against targets far easier, quicker and more accurate. In addition, the document dynamically responds to individual programme characteristics, with options for different programme lengths, reporting periods, result-framework terminology and number formats. There is also a new guide which provides in-depth instructions and explanations of how to use and understand the template.  

Tool #6: Intervention-specific SGD (template and facilitator’s guide)

These documents provide guidance on how to facilitate a SGD on a specific programme intervention, covering obstacles, enabling factors, potential improvements, sources of evidence, unintended outcomes and sustainability. There are also hints and tips on managing group dynamics, phrasing prompts and follow-up questions, and probing group members’ responses.

Tool #7: Inventory of Deliverables (template and sample)

These tools allow users to document all programme deliverables, whether expected (i.e. stipulated in the approved work-plan) or not. They help users categorise deliverables according to outcome/purpose and type (such as data sets, assessments, evaluations and so on), and provide space to specify language, delivery date, location, user(s) and detail any comments. There is also guidance on how to define deliverables, which are sometimes confused with outputs and cause confusion.

Tool #8: Inventory of Events & Shocks (template and sample)

The Inventory of Events and Shocks provides a single repository for users to document all the external developments that occurred during programme implementation. It helps users think through each event/shock and how it affected contextual factors (such as food availability and household income), which in turn may have affected programme performance. This tool therefore provides a methodical way to assess how factors outside of Mercy Corps’ control may have impacted programme success, which then feeds into the overall assessment of programme performance.

Tool #9: Folder Structure and Filing Guide

This document provides a standardised structure to organise documents relevant to the FIPR process. It enables all users, whether they were directly involved in the programme or not, to easily navigate the programme’s documents and conduct searches for specific files.  

Tool #10: Prioritising Interventions (guide, template and sample)

The Prioritising Interventions tools help users facilitate and document a structured discussion which ranks single or groups of interventions by their relative importance to the success of the programme. In doing so, the discussion prompts group members to think through the mechanisms by which interventions achieved impact and whether they did so independently or relied on other interventions as pre-requisites. The results of the exercise provide useful insight for comprehensively understanding programme performance and drawing lessons and best practice for future programming.  

Updates  

The Version 2 toolkit tools will be updated from time to time to improve their clarity and ease-of-use.  

Contact  

If you have questions about the toolkit, please write to either Thomas Scialfa, Ala’a Issa, Tom Clark,or Meri Ghorkhmazyan.