FSV projects Annual Reporting Template - July 2010

The FSV Project Annual Report 2010-11 is based on the new Evaluation and Performance Measurement Framework (EPMF). As a Project Leader you are required to provide information relevant to your project.

Refer to the Evaluation and Performance Monitoring Framework (EPMF) information page on PrimarySource for a description of the EPMF, reasons for its introduction, benefits to your project team and the uses for the information you collect and report on.

This document includes instructions and template for completing your project’s Annual Report.

Please note: as this is a new and more comprehensive reporting process the template is being sent out as early as possible to allow time for completion, QA and collation for corporate reporting due 8 July 2011. The time period for data collection will therefore be less than the 12 months. An on-line system is planned for the near future which will streamline processes to enable reports to capture data much closer to the full reporting period (6 or 12 month).

Once you have completed this document, you will need to send it to your Key Project Manager by 20 May 2011.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Timelines and Workflow
1.0.     Project Management
1.1.       Budget
1.2.       Project Management Documentation
1.3.       Capability
1.4.       Project Deliverables
2.0.      Activities/ Outputs, Participation and Reactions
2.1.       Other Reactions/ Client Satisfaction
2.2.       Publications
2.3.       Collaborations with Service Providers
2.4.       Estimated numbers of clients to whom Service Providers deliver DPI Services/information.
3.0.      INTENDED Practice Change
4.0.      ACTUAL Practice Change
5.0.      Project Outcomes (Objectives)
6.0.      Learnings and Recommendations
APPENDIX 1 - Summaries of Evaluation Reports
APPENDIX 2 – List of Service Providers collaborating with your project

Instructions for completing this Annual Reporting Template

The EPMF information page on PrimarySource contains a Data Dictionary and EPMF spreadsheet providing detailed definitions and rationale for the Key Evaluation Questions. Each section in the template has a footnote with a reference to the relevant question/indicator in the EPMF to help you find the definitions. Please ensure the data and information reported conform to these definitions so that all projects are collecting consistent information that can be used at Key Project, Branch and FSV level reporting. If data doesn’t conform but addresses the Key Evaluation Questions please include it and clearly state the difference between your definition and that of the Data Dictionary. For example, if you have a client satisfaction rating but not using the BSTF definition of “relevance” please include with your definition.

Not all questions will be relevant to all projects, at all time periods. Please state if a question is not relevant at all or not relevant just for this time period and include a date when your project will be reporting against this section (eg end of project for an outcome measure). Please talk to your KPM before report submission if you are unsure which questions should be relevant for your project.

All projects must complete the required sections MARKED WITH AN ASTERIX. The non-required should be completed if data is available but otherwise can be left until the next reporting period. It is expected that projects will modify data collection processes in the future to ensure that data is available for all questions (required and not required) relevant to their project for the December 2011 reporting period.

Please note that this is the minimum level of information required for your project’s annual report. Additional project specific questions and reporting is encouraged if the template headings don’t adequately represent your project. There is provision for this in Section 5 (report on project specific outcomes). Project Leaders are encouraged to add questions to any section of the template to make it more relevant for their project.

Questions about this template should be directed to your Branch’s Service and Business Improvement Manager or Evaluation Officer in the first instance. If they are unable to answer your question, they may direct you to your KPM or Strategic Evaluation Team account manager.

Timelines and Workflow

Project Name *

CMI Number *

MIS Number *

Project Leader *

Project Start Date *

Project End Date *

Period this report covers *

(eg: July 2010 - May 20 2011)

Branch *

Key Project *

Service/s (from sector service Plan) *

Comments:

1. Project Management

1.1 Budget

	Fund source	Full year budget ($)	Forecast Full year Expenditure ($)	Forecast Full year Variance ($)	Forecast Full year Variance (%)	Explanation and action taken if variance >5%
1 *

2 *

3 *

4 *

5 *

6 *

7 *

8 *

9 *

10 *

Place Further Information Here:

Comments:

EPMF: 1.0.1a

1.2 Project Management Documentation

	Date original completed	Date of last revision	Plan implemented?(Y/N)	Emerging Risks/Issues and their impacts and Actions taken to address
Project Plan *

CMI Entry *

Evaluation Plan– modified to align with the new Evaluation and Performance Monitoring Framework (EPMF) *

Risk Plan *

Communication and/or Stakeholder Engagement Plan *

Place Further Information Here:

	List planned and/or completed evaluation reports (mid and final project evaluation activities)	Eval Status (Complete/In progress/Not started)	Date Completed or due	Purpose of the evaluation (brief description)
1 *

2 *

3 *

4 *

5 *

6 *

7 *

8 *

9 *

10 *

Place Further Information Here:

Comments:

EPMF: 1.0.2a, 1.0.2c, 1.0.2d
Go to Appendix 1 to provide Summaries of completed evaluations

1.3 Capability

What actions or activities have the project team undertaken in order to ensure access to or build capability to effectively deliver the project? (For this reporting period)

Only include significant capability activities. This section can be left blank if no relevant information to report

EPMF: 1.1

1.4 Project Deliverables

(Mark FFS Deliverables in bold)

	Project Deliverables (significant outputs e.g. a program of extension events, a report etc. From Project Plan)	Due Date(mth/yr)	Date Completed Status (Achieved/On track/Delayed)	Comment on Highlights/ Achievements or Explanation if delayed
1 *
2 *
3 *
4 *
5 *
6 *
7 *
8 *
9 *
10 *
	Project Deliverables (significant outputs e.g. a program of extension events, a report etc. From Project Plan)	Due Date(mth/yr)	Date Completed Status (Achieved/On track/Delayed)	Comment on Highlights/ Achievements or Explanation if delayed
11 *
12 *
13 *
14 *
15 *
16 *
17 *
18 *
19 *
20 *

Place Further Information Here:

Comments:

EPMF: 1.0.3a

2. Activities/ Outputs, Participation and Reactions

Activity/Output Type delivered by Project in 2010/2011

a & b: Refer to EPMF Framework for definitions (2.1.1f)
b & c: Average the rating for all the events in each category.

Fill in all fields below. Use N/A if necesarry

	(Number delivered) By FSV alone *	(Number delivered) Co-delivered with Service Provider/ industry *	(Numbers attending/ accessing each activity/output) Farmers (inc Community) *	(Numbers attending/ accessing each activity/output) Service Providers *	(Participants’ rating (out of 10) of relevance of this activity ^b) Farmers *	(Participants’ rating (out of 10) of relevance of this activity ^b) Service Providers	(No. (and %) of participants who would recommend this to others ^c) Farmers *	(No. (and %) of participants who would recommend this to others ^c) Service Providers
Longer term group *

Longer term One on One *

One-off group *

One-off One on One *

Incentive (grants) program *

Technical information products *

Communication products *

Development activities *

Networking/ stakeholder engagement *

Specific stakeholder interactions on climate change, climate variability and emissions management *

	(Number delivered) By FSV alone *	(Number delivered) Co-delivered with Service Provider/ industry *	(Numbers attending/ accessing each activity/output) Farmers (inc Community) *	(Numbers attending/ accessing each activity/output) Service Providers *	(Participants’ rating (out of 10) of relevance of this activity ^b) Farmers *	(Participants’ rating (out of 10) of relevance of this activity ^b) Service Providers	(No. (and %) of participants who would recommend this to others ^c) Farmers *	(No. (and %) of participants who would recommend this to others ^c) Service Providers
Farming families participating in DPI preventative health program (SFF) *

Targeted areas provided with information through AgFutures forums about the key drivers of change for agriculture to guide local decision making (No. of forums delivered) *

Number of farmers facing significant adjustment pressures supported to make better informed decisions (RFC total and new clients) *

Number of Water Savings Plans completed in the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District *

Number of significant customer interactions to facilitate export outcomes *

Other (list) *

Comments:

EPMF: 2.1.1a, 2.1.1b, 2.1.1c, 2.1.1d, 2.1.1e, 2.3.1a, 2.3.1c, 2.3.1d, 2.3.1e, 2.3.1f, 3.0.2a, 3.0.2b

Activities in green italics are specific DTF/ERC KPIs to be reported every 6 months

a & b: Refer to EPMF Framework for definitions (2.1.1f)
b & c: Average the rating for all the events in each category.

2.1 Other Reactions/ Client Satisfaction

This section is an alternative to “Relevance” in “2. Activities/ Outputs, Participation and Reactions”

What evidence is there that end users and next users are satisfied with the project’s activities?
What were their reactions to the information/ services they have accessed? *

EPMF: 3.0.3

2.2 Publications

Peer Reviewed Publications (including journal articles, conference proceedings) *

	Title	Author	Date Submitted	Date Accepted	Published where?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Other publications developed in this reporting period (e.g. Newsletters, AgNotes, Fact Sheets, Web content etc). *

	Title	Author	Date Submitted	Date Accepted	Published where?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Place Further Information Here:

Comments:

EPMF: 2.1.1h

2.3 Collaborations with Service Providers

Type of Service Provider (SP)

	PARTNERSHIP Number SPs delivering or co-delivering under a formal agreement (contract, MoU) with DPI. Generally SP not paid by DPI.	PARTNERSHIP Number SPs known by DPI to be delivering or co-delivering with no formal agreement	OUTSOURCE Number SPs paid by DPI to deliver (excludes those where funds come from participants e.g. via RIST)
Agribusiness (consultant, retailer, accountant etc) *

Grower group/ community group etc *

Other Agency (e.g. CMA, local government etc) *

Other (describe) *

Comments:

EPMF: 2.2.1a, 2.2.1c

Please provide a list of the Service Providers your project collaborates with in Appendix 2. This will assist aggregation of data and minimise double counting

There is an additional category of SPs (Wholesalers) who are delivering DPI material but we are not able to count them

2.4. Estimated numbers of clients to whom Service Providers deliver DPI Services/information.

The following information may only be collected in specific circumstances e.g. where a project has an ongoing relationship with a Service Provider and/or is conducting an event/meeting etc with Service Providers where it might be appropriate to ask these questions. It is not recommended that projects elicit this information by surveying Service Providers

	Number or Rating ^a	Comments (include quotes, examples, mini case studies)
1. How many clients do Service Providers intend to use (or have used)* DPI services/info for? *IN your response, note whether the answer is "Intend to use" (eg asked at an extension event) or "Have Used" (eg obtained from follow up research after the activity)

2. What impact has collaboration with DPI (including using information sourced from FSV) had on Service Provider's client base?

3. What impact has collaboration between Service Providers and DPI (including using information sourced from DPI) had on Service Providers service offer to clients?

Comments:

a: Rating scale for 1. and 2. 1= significant decrease, 3= no change, 5= significant increase

3. INTENDED Practice Change

Section 3 captures information collected immediately (or a short interval) after delivery of an extension activity. Section 4 captures information collected at a later date and is intended to measure ACTUAL practice change. It is expected that most projects will be able to complete at least some of this section for example by adding these questions to their activity evaluation sheets (Refer to the EPMF for definitions and potential Happy Sheet questions). However, not all questions will be relevant for all projects.

3.1. End and Next User assessment of what end users intend to do differently as a result of this project? (Narrative only)

	End Users feedback *	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 4.0.1a, 4.0.1b

3.2. End and Next User assessment of how the project will assist end users to make decisions in their farm business? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 4.0.2a, 4.0.2b. a Rating (0:Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

3.3. End and Next User assessment of how the project will help the end user to identify opportunities for their farm businesses? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 4.0.3a, 4.0.3b a Rating (0: Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

3.4. End and Next User assessment of how the project will help the end user to manage risk in their farm business? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 4.0.3c, 4.0.3d a Rating (0: Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

3.5. To what extent have end users’ knowledge and/ or skills changed as a result of this project? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers feedback on their own change
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 4.1.1a, 4.1.1b a Rating (0: Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

4. ACTUAL Practice Change

This section captures information collected at a LATER DATE to the extension event. Only projects at this point in their project delivery will have data to complete this section. Not all questions will be relevant for all projects.

4.1. End and Next User assessment of what end users have done differently as a result of this project? (Narrative only)

	End Users feedback *	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 5.0.1

4.2. Level of adoption of improved practices and technologies ^a

	End Users feedback	Name of Practice/technology
% Adoption of (insert name of practice)^b

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc) *

	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
% Adoption of (insert name of practice)^b

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 5.0.1a,

a Mandatory Strategic Plan Indicator.
b See Data Dictionary for definition.

4.3. End and Next User assessment of how the project assisted end users to make decisions in their farm business? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 5.1.1a, 5.1.1b a Rating (0: Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

4.4. End and Next User assessment of how the project helped the end user to identify opportunities for their farm businesses? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 5.1.2a, 5.1.2b a Rating (0: Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

4.5. End and Next User assessment of how the project helped the end user to manage risk in their farm business? (Rating & narrative)

	End Users feedback	Service Providers perception of their clients’ intentions as a result of this projects’ services
Rating ^a:

Narrative (Mini Case study, Quotes, examples etc)

Comments:

EPMF: 5.1.2c, 5.1.2 d a Rating (0: Not at all – 5: Significantly). Average of all events delivered by this project for this period

5. Project Outcomes

	Intended Outcomes for this Project *	Evidence of progression towards or achievement of these project outcomes. * Complete if project is at appropriate stage to measure outcomes
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Place Further Information Here:

Comments:

EPMF: 6.0.1

Ag&Fish Strategy Outcomes

Indicators

(Only relevant for some projects)

Increasing productivity and net value

Growing market access

	Evidence of contribution to Ag&Fish Outcomes - against the Indicators. As well as the mandatory* DPI Strategic Plan Indicators, (green italics), include evidence (narrative and quantification if possible) if your project is at appropriate stage*
Identification of trade barriers and development of strategies to overcome them (DTF/ERC) *

Other Market access/competitiveness indicators *

Sustaining the natural resource base

	Evidence of contribution to Ag&Fish Outcomes - against the Indicators. As well as the mandatory* DPI Strategic Plan Indicators, (green italics), include evidence (narrative and quantification if possible) if your project is at appropriate stage*
Efficiency of irrigation water use (DPI Strategic Plan) *

Area of land subject to best practice soil management (DPI Strategic Plan) *

Level of nutrient run-off from farms and impact on stream and catchment condition (DPI Strategic Plan) *

Other sustainability indicators *

Protecting and enhancing community resources

	Evidence of contribution to Ag&Fish Outcomes - against the Indicators. As well as the mandatory* DPI Strategic Plan Indicators, (green italics), include evidence (narrative and quantification if possible) if your project is at appropriate stage*
Number of targeted emergency management capability development initiatives delivered (DPI Strategic Plan) *

Other community enhancing indicators *

Comments:

EPMF: 6.1.1a, 6.1.2a, 6.1.2b, 6.1.3a, 6.1.3b, 6.1.4a, 6.1.4b, 6.4.1c, 6.1.5a, 6.1.5b, 6.1.5c

Indicators in Green Italics are DTF/ERC or new DPI Strategic Plan measures to be reported every 6 months

6.Other Significant Achievements

Project's significant achievements during the reporting period (not otherwise covered in this report):

7. Learnings and Recommendations

Project Team’s Learnings and Recommendations for improvement to:


A. Strategy (e.g. BSTF, FSV, Co-investors strategies etc)

B. Project Design (including Project Logic)

C. Project Delivery

Comments:

EPMF: 7.0.1, 7.2
Summarise information from completed evaluations (see Appendix 1) as well as project team reflection sessions in this table

Unintended Outcomes

Only complete if project is at appropriate stage to measure outcomes

EPMF: 7.3

APPENDIX 1 - Summaries of Evaluation Reports

EPMF: 1.0.2a, 1.0.2c, 1.0.2d, 7.4

For any Evaluations completed in 2010/2011, please provide a summary of Evaluation Key Findings, Learnings and Recommendations and any Actions taken to address the Recommendations

Please provide a copy of any completed evaluations with this report.


Evaluation Title *

Report Date *


Summary of Findings *

Summary of Learnings (e.g. from project team debriefs) *

Recommendations *

Actions taken to address recommendations *

Comments:

APPENDIX 2 – List of Service Providers collaborating with your project

	Service Provider Name and/or Business/ Organisation Name	Type of Service Provider (Agribusiness, Grower group/community group, Other)	Type of Collaboration (Partnership-Formal; Partnership-Informal; Outsource, Other)
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

	Service Provider Name and/or Business/ Organisation Name	Type of Service Provider (Agribusiness, Grower group/community group, Other)	Type of Collaboration (Partnership-Formal; Partnership-Informal; Outsource, Other)
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Place Further Information Here:

Comments:

EPMF: 2.2.1a, 2.2.1c