PA00XM82

ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE INDEX -OPI-

DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENTS
ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE INDEX
-OPI-
March 2021
DISCLAMER
This publication was produced for the United States Agency for International Development by Panagora Group
through the MEL Activity.
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CONTENT
LIST OF ACRONYMS iii
LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES iv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. JUSTIFICATION 2
3. IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL

PERFORMANCE 3
4. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX - OPI 4

4.1 OPI Scope 6
4.2 OPI Advantages 6
5. OPI STRUCTURE 8
5.1 Measurement matrix by domains, variables and performance levels 11
6. METHODOLOGY FOR OPI CALCULATION 20
7 .IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY 22
7.1 Entering data into the database 27
7.2 Follow-up 27
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX i

CONTENT
8. OPI REPORT 28
8.1 At the Civil Society Organization (CSO) level 28
8.2 At the USAID activities level 29
8.3 At the USAID Mission level 30
8.4 Report in Monitor 31
ANNEXES 33
Annex 1 Performance Index Reference Sheets 34
Annex 1A OPI Value 34

Annex 1B Number of organizations that apply and increase theirperformance category (PMP indicator) 37
Annex 1C Average OPI value 40
Annex 2: OPI Background 43
Annex 3: References 44
Annex 4: Glossary 45
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CSO Civil Society Organization
EOCI Ethnic Organizational Capacity Index
IDRC International Development Research Center
IP Implementing Partner
ITOCA Integrated Technical Organizational Capacity Assessment
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
OCA Organizational Capacity Assessment
OCI Organizational Capacity Index
OPI Organizational Performance Index
ROCI Reinforced Organizational Capacity Index
USAID United States Agency for International Development
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX iii

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES
Graph 1. OPI Domains 5

Graph 2. Actors involvement in the OPI implementation process - short term 26
Graph 3. Actors involvement in the OPI implementation process - long term 27
Table 1. OPI Structure 9
Table 2. Efficiency domain: definition and deliverables 9
Table 3. Relevance domain: definition and variables 10
Table 4. Effectiveness domain: definition and variables 10
Table 5. Sustainability domain: definition and variables 11
Table 6. Service delivery variable: definition and levels 12
Table 7. Reach variable: definition, levels and evidence 13
Table 8. Target population variable: definition, levels and evidence 14
Table 9. Learning variable: definition, levels and evidence 15
Table 10. Results variable: definition, levels and evidence 16
Table 11. Organizational standards variable: definition, levels and evidence 17
Table 12. Resource variable: definition, levels and evidence 18
Table 13. Social capital variable: definition, levels and evidence 19
Table 14. OPI Planning Phase 23
Table 15. OPI Implementation Phase 24
Table 16. OPI Application Analysis Phase 25
Table 17. OPI Results Sharing Phase 25
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX iv

1. INTRODUCTION
USAID/Colombia works with local allies to increase the impact of its activities for lasting
socioeconomic development. Among these strategic allies are civil society organizations
(CSOs) or grassroots organizations, whose work contributes to preserving the social
fabric and promoting improvement in geographic areas afflicted by the conflict and
weakened institutions. Through their work, USAID/Colombia and its implementing
partners have supported a number of organizations on their journey to sustainability by
strengthening their capacities, their outreach, and their geographic and population scope.
By doing so, USAID/Colombia is maximizing the impact of its assistance operations by
promoting local development agents.
In this context, clear measurement tools are needed to help the Mission, its
implementing partners and allies to show progress and provide sufficient data-based
evidence that can inform decision-making processes.
The Organizational Performance Index (OPI) is an indicator that measures

the overall performance of organizations in four main domains; in terms of
short term aspects by analyzing elements such as i) Effectiveness and ii)
Efficiency, and in the long term by reviewing those of iii) Relevance and iv)
Sustainability.
This document can be used as a guidance for USAID technical staff, implementing
partners, and members of CSOs to understand how to use the Organizational
Performance Index (OPI) as a USAID-endorsed indicator for monitoring organizational
capacity building. This handbook will provide the reader with information on how the
index is structured, calculated and reported, and how it can be used when undertaking
activities supported by USAID resources.
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX 1

2. JUSTIFICATION
Civil society organizations are democratic actors who contribute to a country’s
development. They often act as transformation agents of complex social realities on
diverse territories and issues. USAID values and acknowledges the leading role of CSOs
and consequently, the Mission in Colombia promotes local capacities through a range of
organizational strengthening initiatives in topics such as the environment, food security,
production chains, income generation, and human, territorial, ethnic and gender rights,
among others.
The interest in CSOs has led to the development of several methodologies for the
evaluation and self-assessment of organizational capacity in which members of the
organizations themselves participate, such as the Organizational Capacity Assessment
(OCA) (PACT, 2012), and the Organizational Capacity Index (OCI), developed by the
National Planning Department of Colombia. 1
Although several organizations have modified and developed new versions of both the
OCA and the OCI in an effort to adapt them to their mission objectives and specific
contexts (e.g., the USAID LINKAGES project 2), those versions are based on perceptual
evidence. Thus, having a standardized process and tool to measure organizational
performance at the outcome level is still necessary.
USAID’s contributions toward building local capacities with CSOs has led to solutions
and strengthened local development systems. Given the importance of locally-led
development; now is the time to assess these using a standard tool to track impact and
sustainability.
1 See: http://www.ilsleda.org/usr_files/activities_national/12-guia_de_anal_424465.pdf.
2 See: https://www.pactworld.org/library/linkages-itoca-and-action-planning-facilitators-guide.

IMPORTANCE OF
MEASURING
3. ORGANIZATIONAL
PERFORMANCE
The OPI is a standardized measurement that Furthermore, adopting a standardized measurement

comprehensively assesses the organization’s to assess organizational performance will allow
externalperformance in relation to its levels of USAID Colombia to analyze the relationship
efficiency and effectiveness, relevance and between organizational capacity building and the
sustainability. TheOPI allows organizations to wayorganizations deliver services, relate to strategic
identify changes in its external performance allies, achieve impact, become more sustainable, and
over time and to formulate evidence-based react to changes in the external environment. This
organizational strengthening plans. By index can help organizations demonstrate their
analyzing the results of theindex, it is possible to achievements regarding the quality of life of their
identify inter-organizational trends and to beneficiaries and communities, it is also expected to
disaggregate by impact area, location and the growing recognition and prominence of CSO of
organizational type. their contributions and regarding their relationship
with USAID and other international cooperation
organizations

ORGANIZATIONAL
4. PERFORMANCE INDEX
- OPI
The OPI is a means for USAID to analyze country-level trends in capacity development support, and to
make comparisons across organizations. It has the added benefit of providing a common language regarding
the actions needed to achieve and sustain high-impact results. The index is useful for understanding
how and when to intervene in order to improve CSO performance.
Based on the OPI, implementing partners can conduct evidence-based analyses of their work that
supports organizational strengthening to ensure it is relevant, coherent, and systematic.
Moreover, the OPI will be useful for CSOs to identify changes in external performance over time and
formulate plans to improve their ability to achieve their mission and develop lasting and sustainable local
solutions.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX – OPI
The OPI is built upon the International Development Research Center-funded work done by the firm
Universalia Management Group, which researched and field-tested the Capacity Development Outcomes
Framework. 3 This work identifies four domains of organizational performance: i) Effectiveness, ii) Efficiency,
iii) Relevance, and iv) Sustainability. The OPI focuses on capacity development results, and changes in
organizational performance resulting from the improvement of internal capacity. 4 This index reduces
assessment biases because it entails the use of clear and consistent evidence across the different domains of
organizational performance, as well as an evaluation process in which two instances carry out the assessment
independently. 5 Consequently, this index complements and strengthens the outcomes of measurements
obtained using other methodologies focused on perceptual measurements.
Graph 1. OPI Domains
EFFICIENCY RELEVANCE
The ability of an organization The ability of an organizationto
to plan and budget for its respond to the actual and
interventions, with technical current needs of its
and financial efficiency beneficiaries and to remainalert
analyses. to any changes that might
influence this capacity.
Relevance implies the
organization’s ability to adjust
SUSTAINABILITY its actions through continuous
The ability of an organizationto improvement and learning
ensure that its programs and processes
services are supported by a
diverse group of allies and EFFECTIVENESS
networks, along with its
The ability of an organization
capacity to guarantee, maintain
to carry out programs to a high
and manage diverse, own,
standard and continuously
local and international sources
improve their operation, in
of funding and resources (cash
accordance with its vision,
and/or in-kind), achieving long-
mission, objectives and goals.
term results.
To measure OPI, CSO representatives need to collect the data and information described in each sub-area and
then analyze it. It is important to ensure that the measurement represents the current and accurate reality of
the organization. To achieve this, CSOs must understand what counts as evidence; furthermore, two different
people should conduct the assessment independently of each other and yet issue the same scores. 6 An initial
assessment should be made to establish the baseline (to identify the need to adopt internal changes and
establish institutional policies and procedures that favor the improvement of the organizations’ performance)
and, after 12 months, a new assessment should conducted to identify changes over time.
3 Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., and Carden, F. Enhancing organizational performance: A toolbox for self-assessment.
International Development Research Centre. 1999.
4 PACT. Organizational Performance Index (OPI) Handbook: A practical guide to the OPI tool for practitioners and development
professionals, 2015. See: https://www.pactworld.org/library/pacts-organizational-performance-index-handbook
5 These two instances can be understood as two persons or two teams.
6 PACT, 2015.

4.1 OPI Scope

The index measures the organization’s performance based on external
results and accounts for change in organizational strengthening over While the OPI assesses
time. 7 The unit of analysis is the organization in a wholistic sense. organizational capacity and
The index consists of a measurement tool and a process that shapes the performance; risk assessments
collection of evidence, analysis, and usage of findings. Although the OPI such as the USAID’s Pre-Award
can be used independently, it can also be complementary to other tools Survey are still necessary
for measuring internal capacities.
THE OPI is a methodology that... THE OPI does not…
• Uses a standardized performance assessment tool. • Examine organizational

systems, policies, practices and
• Measures organizational change at the outcome level with a focus on procedures.
external performance.
• Useful in the in-depth analyses
• Analyzes change over time against a standardized, globally recognized of a specific technical area.
framework.
• Should not be used to conduct
• Uses the individual organization as the unit of measurement. analyses of national or
subnational governments.
• Involves the entire organization.
• Allows to analyze country-level trends in capacity building support,

and to make comparisons between organizations.
4.2 OPI Advantages
The results of the OPI measurement provide the information base for defining
strengthening plans with specific actions, products, and goals that enable the
organization to transition from a traditional strengthening approach to an
outcome-based approach, grounded on the generation of evidence and impact
identification.
Data generated from the OPI measurement serves as a baseline and parameter for
measuring changes in the capacities of organizations in the medium- and
long-term.
The OPI helps to strategically assess and plan capacity building by

systematically monitoring results.
7 These may include: Community-based organizations, Productive organizations, Community Action Boards, Victims’ organizations,
Ethnic organizations, Cooperatives, Women’s organizations, Cultural organizations, Human Rights organizations, Youth organizations,
Environmental organizations, among others.

Provides tangible evidence to support and validate the results of the

organization’s assessment.
The OPI results provide insight into the impact of organizations in the areas
in which they work.
OPI results can be used to support performance statements and highlight the
organizations’ commitment to measuring results, which can lead to obtaining
resources from a variety of sources.
OPI data can be used to enrich qualitative success stories that reflect the work
of the organizations, helping to link capacity building support to community-level
change.
The index provides a set of standardized benchmarks that are applicable to a

wide variety of organizations and contexts.
By using the OPI, implementing partners will be able to assess the impacts and
sustainability of the organizations they work with.
USAID will benefit from a unique tool that allows it to standardize the
collection of information on the performance of organizations and to
conduct analyses that contribute to understanding the organizational dynamics in
the country.
Implementing the OPI will provide evidence that supports learning, showing
progress, telling stories, and demonstrating the evolution of organizations in
different contexts.
The OPI allows for greater speed and increased understanding and
transparency in communicating organizational performance results.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
The OPI assesses an organization’s performance in and variations help to understand the impact of
four domains: efficiency, relevance, effectiveness and organizations on their territory, as well as sizing the
sustainability, as shown in Graph 1. Each domain real strengthening needs that organizations require.
comprises two variables or sub-areas that describe Table 1 below describes the structure of the OPI,
a four-level progression of increasing performance, while Tables 3-5 describe the components of each
supported by tangible evidence. The results of the four domains that comprise the index.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 1. OPI Structure
PERFORMANCE
DOMAINS VARIABLES EVIDENCE
LEVELS
Service delivery
Efficiency
Reach
Target population 1. Low

Relevance Tangible
Learning 2. Basic evidence
supporting
Results 3. Acceptable the level of
Effectiveness performance
Organizational standards 4. Outstanding
Resources
Sustainability
Social capital
Table 2. Efficiency domain: definition and deliverables
DOMAIN VARIABLES
Service delivery
Organizations that develop, follow and update their
work plans, budgets and tracking systems, and analyze
the technical and financial efficiency of their programs
and services.
EFFICIENCY
This refers to an organization’s
capacity to plan and budget for Reach
itsinterventions, using technical Organizations that deploy resources to reach their
and financial efficiency analyses. target population with clearly articulated plans and,
over time, expand the size of their target population,
geographic areas and/or improve the quality of their
programs and services.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 3. Relevance domain: definition and variables
DOMAIN VARIABLES
Target population
Organizations that engage key and relevant actors
(members, partners, beneficiaries, allies and
stakeholders) in a participatory manner at every
RELEVANCE
step of a project, to ensure activities address
The capacity of an organization to actual needs including active involvement in the
respond to the actual and current design andimplementation of solutions.
needs of its beneficiaries and to
remain alert to any change that
might influence this capacity. It Learning
also includes the organization’s Organizations that embrace and implement learning
ability to adjust its actions through outcomes to make adjustments, changes and/or
continuous improvement and improvements within the organization, in order to
learning processes. adaptto new contexts.
Table 4. Effectiveness domain: definition and variables
DOMAIN VARIABLES
Results
Organizations that measure and analyze medium and
EFFECTIVENESS long-term results to best serve their associates and/or
beneficiary population.
The ability of an organization
to carry out programs to a
Organizational standards
high standard and continuously
improve their operation, in Organizations creating and/or adopting and consistently
accordance with its vision, implementing standards or protocols (national,
mission, objectives and goals. international, technical, quality, industrial, among others)
and improving them over time.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 5. Sustainability domain: definition and variables
DOMAIN VARIABLES
Resources
Sustainable organizations generate resources
SUSTAINABILITY
strategically,from multiple and diverse sources.
The ability of an organization to
ensure that its programs and
services are supported by a diverse
group of allies and networks, along
Social capital
with its capacity to guarantee,
maintain and manage diverse, own, Sustainable organizations understand and efficiently
local and international sources of use social capital, i.e. relationships of trust,
funding and resources (cash and/ coordination andcooperation with other organizations
or in-kind), achieving long-term and public-private institutions, aiming at implementing
results. their activities with long-term results.
5.1 Measurement matrix by domains, variables and

performance levels
The basic unit of analysis is the organization, as a social unit acting in a

given context. The OPI is a methodology that uses an evaluation tool to
analyze external performance. The index assesses the CSO Evidence to support the
in four domains: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and sustainability. Each scoring or assessment of each
of these domains comprises two sub-areas, with four performancelevels variable is a key aspect. What
each. The performance levels describe the current status of the matters most in an evidence
organization on a scale from 1 to 4, which is read and interpreted in review is the quality of the
ascending order. The application of the tool requires supporting information.
documents and evidence provided by the organization. Those
evidence are official documents of the CSO, authorized and signed by the
delegate or legal representative, with a validity not exceeding one year.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
EFFICIENCY DOMAIN: This refers to an organization’s capacity to plan and budget for its
interventions, using technical and financial efficiency analyses. Table 6 below defines and describesthe
different levels, while Table 7 illustrates the subareas associated with efficiency.
Table 6. Service delivery variable: definition and levels
VARIABLE: SERVICES DELIVERY:

Organizations that develop, follow and update their work 8 plans, 9 budgets and tracking systems, and analyze the
technical and financial efficiency of their programs and services.
LEVEL DESCRIPTION EVIDENCE

The organization is developing a work plan.
This plan has a clear and concrete description of
1 the activities to be carried out, the people in
Document of the organization in which it self-identifies as a Level 1
charge, budgets and execution times.
• Copy of the organization’s work plan.

• The activities described in the plan are clear, including budget,
The organization has a work plan, written and
timeline and assignment of responsibilities (to a person or
previously shared, that outlines its actions. The
work unit).
plan includes activities, budget, responsibilities and
2 timeline, and the organization has completed
• Minutes recording the presentation of the plan to the
beneficiary population and/or associates.
over 30 percent of the annual work plan,
• Progress reports detailing the results achieved, with evidence
carrying out the activities on time and on budget.
of having completed at least 30% of the activities on time and
on budget.
The organization has completed at least 60 • Copy of progress reports demonstrating completion of at least
percent of the programs and services in its 60 percent of the activities on time and on budget.
3 annual work plan, on time and on budget, and has
• Copy of the technical and financial analysis report, providing
conducted a technical and financial analysis
of operations and program services. evidence of cost-tracking for the work plan during the last year.
• Copy of progress reports demonstrating completion of at least

The organization has completed at least 80 80 percent of the activities on time and on budget.
percent of the programs and services in • Copy of the program report, providing evidence of the
4 its annual work plan, on time and on budget,
technical and financial efficiency analysis of the activities.
and conducts regular technical and financial
monitoring of operations and program services. • Copy of monitoring and evaluation plan minutes or reports to
verify that program progress is being tracked. 10
8 These may be life plans, ethnic-development plans, strategic plans, business plans, among others.
9 Document describing the mission, strategies, objectives and activities of the organization.
10 Document that describes the data needs, the data collection and analysis process, and the evaluation and reporting procedures
carried out by the organization.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 7. Reach variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: REACH:
Organizations that deploy resources to reach their target population with clearly articulated plans and, over time,
expand the size of their target population, geographic areas and/or improve the quality of their programs and services.

The organization is in the process of
1 identifying and outlining a target population for Document of the organization in which it self-identifies as a Level 1
its programs and services.
The organization has clearly identified and • Database of its target population or equivalent.
defined a target population for its programs • Tracking and monitoring plan 11, control tables and/or databases
2 and services and is implementing a tracking that identify clearly the target population, goals, expected results,
and monitoring plan to document progress in and the methods for collecting, disaggregating and processing data
activity development with the target populations. in order to document progress.
• Copy of supporting documents for the tracking and monitoring

plan, control tables and/or completed databases, showing activity
The organization is reaching its target population follow-up and demonstrating that at least 60 percent of the
3 with the activities in progress and has achieved
expected results have been achieved.
at least 60 percent of the expected outputs.
• Copy of written procedures for data collection to ensure data
quality.
The organization has achieved at least 80 • Copy of supporting documents for the tracking and monitoring
percent of its expected outputs with the plan, control tables and/or completed databases, demonstrating
target population and has scaled-up the that at least 80 percent of the expected results have been achieved.
4 breadth and/or the depth of its activities in • Documents that support the work plan tracking and detail how
terms of coverage and/or quality. (By: geographic the organization is scaling-up the breadth and/or the depth of
coverage, new target population and/or quality coverage and/or quality of the services it provides to the target
improvement of goods and/or services). population according to its strategic plan.
11 Document that describes how the organization measures the implementation of its activities, and specifies the expected results,
indicators and measurement tools

5. OPI STRUCTURE
RELEVANCE DOMAIN: The capacity of an organization to respond to the actual and current
needs of its beneficiaries and to remain alert to any changes that might affect this capacity. It
also includes the organization’s ability to adjust its actions through continuous improvement and
learning processes. Table 8 below defines and describes the target population and different levels,
while Table 9 illustrates the learning subareas associated with relevance.
Table 8. Target population variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: TARGET POPULATION:

Organizations that engage key and relevant actors (members, partners, beneficiaries, allies - stakeholders) in a
participatory manner, at each stage of their operations, to ensure that the activities are oriented to real needs and are
incorporated in the design and implementation of solutions.

The organization is considering promoting
participatory planning and effective
1 inclusion processes, involving the target
population and other relevant stakeholders.
• Minutes or reports of participatory planning meetings or
The organization conducts participatory
assemblies.
planning and decision-making processes
• Attendance list demonstrating the participation of
involving the target population and other relevant
2 stakeholders, considering perspectives on gender,
representatives of the target population by gender, age,
ethnicity and/or other conditions of vulnerability.
generational, ethnic and/or other conditions of
• Budgets include funds for participatory meetings with the
vulnerability.
target population.
The outputs of participatory planning and

decision-making have been used in designing • Work plan that includes the conclusions and decisions reached
and implementing the organization’s programs in the participatory planning meetings or assemblies, including
3 and services, including perspectives on gender, perspectives on gender, generational, ethnic and/or other
generational, ethnic and/or other conditions of conditions of vulnerability.
vulnerability.
The target population is involved in the • Work plans from the past two years that integrate the
development of the activities, programs conclusions and decisions reached at participatory planning
and services, with perspectives on gender, meetings or assemblies, including perspectives on gender,
generational, ethnic and/or other conditions of generational, ethnic and/or other conditions of vulnerability.
4 vulnerability. The outputs of participatory • Reports, minutes or records detailing the proactive
planning are shared and the decisions reached participation of representatives of the target population in the
are incorporated into the design and planning of new programs, activities and services of the
implementation of new programs and services. organization.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 9. Learning variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: LEARNING:
Organizations that adopt and implement learning outcomes to make adjustments, changes and/or improvements within
the organization, to adapt to new contexts.

The organization is developing processes to
analyze the successes, challenges and lessons
1 learned from the operation of its programs and
services.
The organization has defined a process for • Written documentation of the procedure for analyzing successes,
analyzing the successes, challenges and lessons challenges and lessons learned.
2 learned from the operation of its programs and • Minutes, reports or internal documents showing that the
services procedure has been followed at least once.
The organization has institutionalized and • Records, reports or internal documents showing that the
adopted a process for analyzing the successes, procedure has been implemented on at least three occasions in
3 challenges and lessons learned from its programs the last two years.
and services, and implements changes for • Work plans, including new ways of implementing activities, based
improvement as a result of this analysis. on the lessons learned.
The organization uses lessons learned analysis • Minutes of internal meetings that demonstrate the adjustments
to make adjustments, changes and/or and measures adopted for the organization to adapt to new
improvements within the organization to adapt to situations and/or contexts.
new contexts and shares them through its • Evidence of at least three separate efforts over the past two years
4 communicative strategy to influence other to influence related experiences, through communicating the
organizations (presentations, events and/or results of the lessons learned analysis. E.g., reports of workshops
publications, digital products, exchanging conducted, screenshots of digital products, shared experiences,
experiences, among others). publications, presentations, etc.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
EFFECTIVENESS DOMAIN: This is the ability of an organization to carry out programs to a

high standard and to continuously improve their operation, in accordance with its vision, mission,
objectives and goals. Table 10 below defines and describes the results sub-areas and different levels,
while Table 11 illustrates the organizational subareas associated with effectiveness.
Table 10. Results variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: RESULTS:
Organizations that measure and analyze medium and long-term results to better serve their associates and/or
beneficiary population.

The organization is in the process of
1 identifying and defining its medium and Document of the organization in which it self-identifies as a Level 1
long term results for its programs and services.
The organization has clearly defined its • The organization has defined its medium and long term results
2 medium and long term results for all of its and has a follow-up or monitoring plan that includes indicators
programs and services. and measurement tools to assess its results.
• Reports presented to the governing bodies or assembly, showing

an achievement of at least a 50 percent of the expected results.
The organization has achieved more than 50 • Data base, spreadsheet and/or control tables showing a
3 percent of its medium and long term results minimum of 50% of the results achieved with their respective
for all its programs and services. supporting documentation.
• Written procedures in place to ensure quality in the collection
and analysis of results.
• Reports presented to the governing bodies or assembly, showing

The organization has achieved more than 75 an achievement of at least a 75 percent of the expected results.
4 percent of its medium and long term results • Data base, spreadsheet and/or control tables showing a
for all its programs and services. minimum of 75 percent of the results achieved with their
respective supporting documentation.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 11. Organizational standards variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: ORGANIZATIONAL STANDARDS:

Organizations creating and/or adopting and constantly implementing standards or protocols (national, international,
technical, quality, industrial, among others) and improving them over time.
The organization understands the need to
adopt and/or is in the process of creating a
1 number of internal protocols or standards to Document of the organization in which it self-identifies as a Level 1
guide the implementation of its programs and
services.
• The organization is developing its own protocols or standards
The organization is already developing relevant
which feedback on similar initiatives at a national and/or
2 protocols or standards to guide its programs and
international level. (Copy of drafts and/or progress documents
services.
of protocols and/or standards, not older than one year).
• Records, monitoring reports, meeting minutes, among others,
evidencing the organization’s progress and commitments to
The organization has begun to implement its implement its protocols and/or standards in some of its
3 own protocols or standards in some of its programs and services
programs and services. • Reports from external evaluators or certification from other
recognized organizations, evidencing that the organization has
begun to apply the standards or protocols it has defined.
• External evidence such as evaluations, certifications endorsed by
recognized organizations or other evidence over a period of
The organization implements its protocols
more than two years, that demonstrate that the organization has
and/or standards in at least half of its programs
complied and continues to comply with established standards
4 and services and continues to adjust to establish
and/or protocols.
new protocols and/or standards to guide its
• Minutes of meetings, reports, etc., showing that the organization
actions.
is engaged in efforts to implement established standards or
protocols and is in the process of adopting new ones.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
SUSTAINABILITY DOMAIN: This refers to the ability of an organization to ensure that its
programs and services are supported by a diverse group of allies and networks, along with its
capacity to guarantee, maintain and manage diverse, own, local and international sources of funding
and resources (cash and/or in-kind), achieving long-term results. Table 12 below defines and
describes the resource sub-areas and different levels, while Table 13 illustrates the social capital
subareas associated with sustainability.
Table 12. Resource variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: RESOURCES:
Sustainable organizations generate resources strategically, using multiple and diverse sources.

The organization is developing a resource
mobilization plan that clearly identifies both
1 the resources needed for programs and services,
and potential sources.
The organization has defined a resource • Resource mobilization plan that identifies the resources
mobilization plan, which clearly identifies both required.
2 the resources needed for programs and services, • The resource mobilization plan is determined by the needs
as well as potential sources. identified in the organizational budget and strategic plan.
The organization has managed to leverage at • Certifications indicating the reception of resources and their
least 20 percent of the resources needed for source (resources may be financial, human, in-kind).
3 the current operating year from one or more • Leveraged resources must represent at least 20percent of the
sources. organization’s total budget for the operating year.
The organization has managed to leverage

resources from at least two sources of funding to
support the implementation of its programs and • Certifications evidencing the leveraging of resources from at
services. Resource diversification efforts are least two sources of funding, in addition to the main funder
4 demonstrated by the fact that no single donor • The budget shows that no single source provides more than 40
represents more than 40 percent of the percent of the organization’s resources.
organization’s total resources for the current
operating year.

5. OPI STRUCTURE
Table 13. Social capital variable: definition, levels and evidence
VARIABLE: SOCIAL CAPITAL:

Sustainable organizations understand and efficiently use social capital, i.e. relationships of trust, coordination and
cooperation with other organizations and public-private institutions, aiming at implementing their activities with long
term results.

The organization is learning about the value of
1 building networks and/or organizational platforms Document of the organization in which it self-identifies as a Level 1
and is considering potential partnerships.
• Proof of membership and/or participation in local networks with

The organization participates in recognized
topics relevant to the organization’s mission.
local networks that are relevant to its programs
• Minutes or supporting documents that clearly identify the
and services. The organization belongs to
2 networks and is capable of creating alliances,
organization as an active member of the network or
partnership.
engaging other civil society organizations in
• Memorandum of understanding or letters of commitment that
its activities.
demonstrate a partnership with at least one CSO.
• Proof of membership and/or participation in national networks

and/or organizational platforms on issues relevant to the
The organization participates in national organization’s mission.
networks and/or organizational platforms • Minutes or documents that clearly identify the organization as an
3 relevant to its mission. The organization is able active member of at least one national network and/or
to demonstrate its leadership in partnerships organizational platform.
with other CSOs and government entities. • Memorandum of understanding or letters of commitment,
demonstrating the existence of a partnership with at least one
CSO and one government entity (local, regional or national).
• Minutes or supporting documents that clearly identify the

The organization identifies itself as a leader
organization as an active member of a network and/or
in national networks and/or recognized
organizational platform, leading a collective action proposal.
organizational platforms that are relevant to its
• Memorandum of understanding or letters of commitment,
programs and services, leading proposals for
demonstrating the existence of a partnership with at least one
4 collective action. The organization is a positive
CSO, one government entity (local, regional or national) and
point of reference and is able to demonstrate
one private sector entity.
its partnerships with other civil society
• References from other CSOs, government institutions and the
organizations, governmental entities and
private sector, which recognize the organization as a positive
the private sector.
point of reference.

6. METHODOLOGY FOR
OPI CALCULATION
It should be noted that although the basic unit of The lowest OPI score that an organization can obtain
measurement for calculating the OPI is at the is eight points, which means that the organization is at
organization level, it can also be assessed in an level 1 in all eight sub-areas. The highest OPI score is
aggregate manner at the activity or specific USAID 32 points, which means that the organization is at
Mission level, such as USAID/Colombia. level 4 in each of the eight sub-areas.

6. METHODOLOGY FOR OPI CALCULATION
To make the calculation, the current status of the organization at each The score for each variable
level and the evidence provided by the supporting documents are depends on the level at which
analyzed. Once the organization, the implementing partner and/or a third- theorganization is located; i.e.,
party delegate have jointly verified that all of the documentation is if the organization is at level 2
accurate, the total OPI score obtained by the organization is validated. in the results variable, its score
is 2. If the organization is at
The domain score is the sum of its two corresponding sub-areas. The level 3 in the standards
total OPI score is the sum of the scores of the eight sub-areas. variable, its score will be 3.
Example:
Domains Variables Level
Results 2
Effectiveness
Organizational Standards 1
Service Delivery 2
Efficiency
Reach 1
Target Population 2
Relevance
Learning 1
Resources 1
Sustainability
Social Capital 3
Total 13
With the score obtained in the first measurement, the organization identifies and focuses on the areas whereit
should concentrate efforts to improve its organizational performance and, with a subsequent measurement,
demonstrate the improvements it has achieved.
It is recommended that the second measurement be carried out after at least 12 months and no later than18
months, in order to evaluate the results and highlight the domains and sub-areas the organization has
strengthened.
Domains Variables Level
Results 2
Effectiveness
Organizational Standards 2
Service Delivery 2
Efficiency
Reach 3
Target Population 3
Relevance
Learning 2
Resources 2
Sustainability
Social Capital 3
Total 19
It should be noted that although the basic unit of measurement for calculating the OPI is at the CSO level, it
can also be assessed in an aggregate manner at the Activity or country Mission level.

7. IMPLEMENTATION
METHODOLOGY
The OPI is characterized by the fact that it measures

organizational change at the outcome level with
a focus on external performance. This index
allows establishing a link between internal
organizational change and the improvements in
the lives of their beneficiaries and communities.

7. IMPLEMENTATION METHODOLOGY
The methodology for its implementation is carried out through workshops with the participation of legal
representatives of CSOs and the team in charge of organizational strengthening activities: implementing
partners, USAID/Colombia Mission technical staff and/or a third party assigned to this task. The assessment
exercise is centered on the collection and analysis of evidence as the main source of data, which is examined
during the workshop both by the CSO and by a third party who independently conducts the assessment.
It is recommended that the facilitator(s) be previously trained in the OPI methodology, and have a conceptual
understanding of the approach, scope, potential and the differences with other organizational capacity
measurement tools. 12
The following Tables 14-17 describe the OPI assessment process in its four different phases: planning,
implementation, application and analysis, and sharing.
Table 14. OPI Planning Phase
PHASE: PLANNING
ACTIVITIES
METHODOLOGICAL LEVEL LOGISTICS LEVEL COMMUNICATIONS LEVEL
Establish CSO selection criteria for OPI Arrange with the CSO the place, date and
implementation. time for the OPI application workshop. Send a formal communication to the
organization informing the objective of
It should be anticipated that some the meeting, time required, and
Send the confidentiality agreement, in
supporting evidence will not be available requesting the participation of the
order to guarantee adequate revision,
at the place of the workshop, in which leaders with the most knowledge of
reception and storage of the supporting
case a maximum period of 15 calendar the organization. It is acceptable for 3
evidence to carry out the organization's
days should be set for the organization to up to 10 people toparticipate.
assessment.
to send it by mail.
Organize the necessary logistics in

advance (room, video beam, flip charts,
markers, distribution of chairs, snacks,
attendance lists, etc.).
If the workshop is to be held virtually, it

is important to consider connectivity
options and send the link to the meeting
Prepare a step-by-step agenda of the Send the OPI (Handbook and tool) to
in advance to all participants.
OPI Workshop. theorganization before the meeting.
Prepare the material necessary for the
conceptual and methodological
presentation of the OPI (updated
PowerPoint presentation), either to
make a presentation using aids such as a
video beam, if logistical conditions allow
it, or on billboards or flip charts.
12 These can include tools such as OCI - OCA - ROCI - EOCI, etc.).

Table 15. OPI Implementation Phase
PHASE: IMPLEMENTATION
ACTIVITIES
METHODOLOGICAL LEVEL
LOGISTICS LEVEL COMMUNICATIONS LEVEL
FIRST TIME SECOND TIME
Conduct the workshop for the Open a formal space for the
assessment of the It is the review of the evidence introduction of the participants and
organization’s OPI, using the or documents that the create an atmosphere of trust.
scale for each of the 8 organization must provide to Share the planned agenda and keep
variables. This workshop can support the assessment made track of time to comply with each of
be either in-person or virtual. the first time. the planned steps.
The assessment is made by the The workshop facilitator, Prepare the report of Explain in detail the purpose of the
organization at a plenary along with the person the activity, signed by workshop and highlight the following:
session and the facilitator delegated by the organization, the participants. a) This is a voluntary exercise and one
records the results in the meet at the organization’s of its purposes is to transfer the OPI
assessment tool. office to review the supporting methodology so that the organization
evidence for each of the 8 adopts it and considers it as part of its
The estimated time for this variables of the OPI. This organizational learning strategy.
activity is two to three hours. activity is estimated to last one b) The unit of analysis is the
An agreement should be to two hours. organization as a whole and not the
reached with the sub-activity being implemented with
organization’s representatives USAID resources.
regarding the person they c) The OPI analysis is carried out on
delegate to deliver the the current situation of the
supporting information organization and not on the future or
required to back up the OPI what the organization is setting out to
assessment. If the workshop is do.
held in person, the evidence is d) Repeat that the application of the
reviewed on site; otherwise, if OPI focuses on assessing the
it is virtual, the organization is performance of the organization, its
requested to send the results and achievements. Internal
supporting documents within organizational capacities are not
the next 15 calendar days to assessed.
the implementing partner and/ e) It is necessary to emphasize the
or support team. Prepare a document importance of having reliable and
Define commitments for the recording the timely supporting evidence. The OPI
Clarify doubts about the
organization to send the supporting information allows organizations to reduce
language used in the tool
supporting information that that has been submitted evaluation biases by having reliable and
before carrying out the
they do not have available at for the OPI results tangible evidence to support the
measurement.
the time, to the implementing assessment exercise, assessment and/or scoring of each
Carry out the measurement, partner's email and/or to the which must be signed by variable and domain.
using the OPI assessment tool. support team. The deadline is the organization's f) The first measurement serves as the
Explain each domain and its 15 calendar days. delegateand the baseline and a second measurement of
variables, and address each facilitator. the OPI should be carried out at least
level slowly so that workshop 12 months and no longer than 18
participants can assess the months later.
current state of their
organization and determine Share the results of the measurement
what level they are at. It is exercise. Clarify that these results are
important to go through the preliminary, and should be confirmed
description of each variable with the supporting documents and
and the required evidence. evidence provided by the organization.
Close the workshop, focusing Explain the structure of the tool

on the lessons learned and (domains, variables, levels and
difficulties experienced by the evidence) and the OPI process
participants. (analysis of change over time).

Table 16. OPI Application Analysis Phase
PHASE: ANALYSIS
ACTIVITIES
This activity will be undertaken by the

implementing partner or support team who will The implementing partner, or support
be responsible for the reception and review of all team, will prepare a preliminary report
OPI results from each organization, and of their on the OPI results of the organization.
verification sources.
Once all the supporting information has been The implementing partner or the
received from the organization, the implementing support team will make the final
partner or support team will carry out the Have available the assessment assessment of the organization's OPI
tool to be able to register
respective analysis to define the level of each of and this result will be shared with the
disaggregated results on each
the 8 variables of the OPI. representatives of the organization.
domain for the organization.
The implementing partner or support team
validates the organization's score and current
status on each of the 8 variables. To do this, they
must receive all supporting evidence that rates
the organization's level. For instance, until the
evidence support for level three (3) is validated,
the organization will remain at level two (2).
Table 17. OPI Results Sharing Phase
PHASE: RESULTS SHARING

ACTIVITIES
Formal communication with the The implementing partner, or the support

The organization’s responsible leaders
organization to arrange a day to share the team, will be responsible for the reception
agree to discuss the final results of the
and review of all OPI results from
results. This session may be in person, OPI with both their management and
using a meeting area of the organization, each organization and their sources of
their social base so a consensus can be
verification. Register disaggregated results
or it may be carried out virtually with reached and plans defined to improve
on each domain in the assessment tool for
some of the organization's delegates. organizational performance.
the organization.
In this communication session, it is

possible to make consensual Using the information in the
adjustments, if new evidence or assessment tool, the implementing
The final results and the OPI
supporting documents become partner or the support team
acceptance and validation report
available at the time. Once the OPI processes all the information
from the organization will be shared
results have been discussed and obtained from the OPI outcomes to
with the organizational
accepted, a minute is drawn up with perform trend analysis by type of
strengthening specialists of the
the conclusions and the final validated organization, geographic area,
activities, in order to reflect on the
results, which will be signed by the domain, variables, etc. It also
contributions to strengthening the
legal representative or delegate of the prepares reports for USAID, with the
performance of the CSOs.
organization, and the representative level of disaggregation established by
of the implementing partner or the the index.
support team.

In summary, the implementation of the OPI is structured in five major steps, which are:
1. Involve 2. Carry-out the 3. Analyze the 4. Socialize the 5. Analyze OPI

implementing organization evidence: two groups results of the Results: This involves
partners and CSOs assessment of people score assessment analyzing trends in
in the OPI approach workshop: plan and independently of each workshop: it refers to organizational
and methodology: It carry out the other: the organization generating results that performance across all
is important that workshop for each scores itself first, and allow making decisions local partner
organizations are organization involved in the implementing based on evidence and organizations and
involved in the process the process (virtual or partner, or the support formulating a plan to making comparisons
before carrying out the face-to-face), following team, reviews the improve the between organizations.
OPI Assessment and the guidelines explained evidence provided and organization’s
encourage the use of in this section. negotiates the scores if performance, with the
this approach for necessary. support of the
organizational learning Implementing Partners.
and strategic
development.
The main actors involved in the process are: CSOs, IPs, and the supporting team (in charge of ensuring that
the resulting data represent objective reality). To make the process coherent and the results meaningful, the
aforementioned stakeholders must understand their specific responsibility for each of the five steps that
make up the OPI implementation process.
For example, in the short term, CSOs should be fully involved in conducting the assessment workshop (step
2) and sharing the results (step 4); the IPs should be fully involved in step 1, involve the Implementing
Partners and CSOs in the OPI approach and methodology, and in step 3, socialize the results of the
assessment workshop; and the support team in: conducting the organization assessment workshop (step 2),
analyzing the evidence (step 3), and analyzing the results of the OPI (step 4). The following graph presents
the level of involvement of each actor in each of the steps of the process, on a scale of 1 to 3, where 3 is
themaximum level.
Graph 2. Actors involvement in the OPI implementation process - short term

In the medium and long term, it is expected that, as a result of learning the methodology, in particular, and the
gradual transfer of the OPI approach, in general, the IPs will play a more leading role in the organization’s
assessment workshop (step 2), and in the analysis of the evidence (step 3); in parallel, the support team will
focus its involvement in the analysis of the index results (step 4). The following graph shows the involvement of
each actor in each of the steps of the process in the medium / long term, on a scale of 1 to 3, where 3 is the
maximum level, also highlighting the changes with respect to the levels of short-term involvement:
Graph 3. Actors involvement in the OPI implementation process - long term
7.1 Entering data into the database

The implementing partner, or the support team, will be responsible for the reception and
review of all OPI results from each organization. The standardized tool for this purpose
(OPI Matrix) should be used to register the total and disaggregated results by variable and
domain.
Using the information in the database, the implementing partner or the support team
processes all the information obtained from the OPI outcomes to perform trend analysis
by type of organization, geographic area, domain, variables, etc. It also prepares reports for
USAID, with the level of disaggregation established by the index.
7.2 Follow-up
The implementing partner will follow up on the OPI outcomes together with the CSOs
and the support of a third party, if required, to track the improvement actions being
implemented.
Also, the roadmap for the next measurements will be defined, establishing assistance
agreements with the IPs and CSOs.

8. OPI REPORT
This section describes how the OPI report can be used at different levels
8.1 At the Civil Society Organization (CSO) level
The OPI results will be reported for each organization under the OPI Value indicator, disaggregated by
domains and variables. This indicator will be supported by the OPI Matrix of each CSO in which the following
will be registered:
• The characterization of the organization. Registration sheet with the purpose of having basic
information on the profile of each CSO.
• The OPI reporting table, where the results are recorded by domains and variables in a disaggregated
manner. No partial or average scores are recorded, only totals. For example:
DOMAIN SCORE VARIABLES SCORE

Results 3 This report will be in charge of
Effectiveness 5 the supporting team who will
Standards 2
record the measurement by each
Services 3 CSO in MONITOR System as an
Efficiency 6
Reach 3 independent sub-activity. All the
supporting documentation for
Population 4 each of the measurements will be
Relevance 6 uploaded to the MONITOR
Learning 2
document repository with the
Resources 2 following nomenclature: OPI -
Sustainability 5 Activity Acronym - CSO Name -
Social Capital 3
Measurement Number - Year.
OPI 22

8. OPI REPORT
8.2 At the USAID activities level
At the Activity level (Implementing Partners) progress on the measurement of the OPI will be made through the
indicator Number of organizations that apply and increase their performance category (PMP
Indicator). This indicator may be included in their Activity Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Plans (AMELP)
and consequently must be reported in the MONITOR System at Activity level.
For this indicator, the categories of organizational performance must be taken into account, to assess the
progress efforts that organizations carry out over time. These categories are:
PERFORMANCE
SCALE DESCRIPTION
CATEGORY
The organization recognizes the
need and drive to strengthen the
Eight four domains. It is necessary to
Low
points implement strategies that define
concrete actions to improve its
organizational performance.
The organization builds common
frameworks and best practices that
Nine – 16 allow it to make some progress in
Basic
Points its performance, but it requires This indicator will be supported
greater efforts in all four OPI by the OPI Matrix of each CSO,
domains. delivered by the support team
to the IP. This report will be in
The organization demonstrates
charge of the IPs, who will
good levels of organizational
record the indicator at Activity
17 – 24 performance, which must be level in the Monitoring System.
Acceptable
points reinforced, maintained and
advanced towards processes of
greater impact and sustainability.
The organization implements best
practices that demonstrate a high
25 – 32 capacity for organizational
Outstanding
points performance and has the ability to
demonstrate its impact and
sustainability.

8. OPI REPORT
8.3 At the USAID Mission level

At the Mission level, progress on the OPI measurement will be made through two indicators:
• Consolidation of the indicador Number of organizations that apply and increase their
performance category (PMP Indicator)
This indicator will be reported by the support team after verification and consolidation of the information
collected by the Activities.
• Average OPI value
To measure the average in the OPI, proceed as follows:
∑ of the OPI of the organizations / Total number of organizations
Where:
∑ OPI (organizations) = Sum of the absolute value of the Index obtained by each organization valued# OPI
organizations = Total number of organizations with OPI measurement in the Activity
Example:
• The activity reports the name of the organization and its total and disaggregated score for each of the
measurements it carries out.
• If the activity, in the first year, selected seven organizations and applied the OPI to them, the average
obtained shall be reported.
• If the activity in the second year selected 10 organizations to apply the OPI, the average obtained shall be
reported
NAME OF THE OPI MEASUREMENTS

ORGANIZATION FIRST SECOND THIRD
Organization 1 9 12 14 The OPI measurement report for the
first year is 17.86 percent.
Organization 2 14 14 18
Organization 3 18 20 21 The OPI measurement report for the
second year is 18.4 percent.
The OPI measurement report for the
third year is 20.2 percent.
This indicator may be included
Organization 8 8 10 in the IPs AMELP if they wish
Organization 9 16 18 to add to the Activity´s set of
indicators and, consequently, it
Organization 10 19 23 must be reported in the
TOTAL 125 184 202 Monitoring System at Activity
level.
Average 17.86% 18.4% 20.2%

8. OPI REPORT
8.4 Report in Monitor
The registration of the progress of the above-mentioned indicators in the MONITOR Information System will
be carried out as follows:
REPORT
INDICATOR RESPONSIBLE
LEVEL
For all indicators, the source of the
OPI Value CSO Support Team
data will come from the support team
Number of in charge of collecting the information
organizations that and supporting documents. All the
apply and increase Activity Implementing Partner supporting documentation for each of
their performance the measurements will be uploaded
category to the MONITOR document
repository with the following
Mission Support Team nomenclature:
Average OPI Value
Activity* Implementing Partner* OPI - Activity Acronym - CSO Name
*Activities may accept this indicator, including it in their AMELP and making the - Measurement Number - Year.
consequent report in MONITOR at the Activity level.

8. OPI REPORT
Linkage between the indicators “number of organizations that increase their

performance category” and “CBLD - 9 Percentage of organizations assisted by the
United States Government with improvements in their performance”
It is important that the Implementing Partners are clear about the use of these two indicators: 1)
Number of organizations that increase their performance category, proposed in this manual and
2) F indicator CBLD-9, since both have similar scopes but not quite the same.
The indicator number of organizations that increase their performance category refers to
the number of CSOs that:
• Have carried out the OPI Assessment, at least twice (baseline and second
measurement);
• Have had an increase in the performance categories described 8.2 At the

USAID Activities level.
• For this indicator, CSOs can include: community-based organizations, productive

organizations, Community Action Boards, victims’ organizations, ethnic
organizations, cooperatives, women’s organizations, cultural organizations,
human rights defense organizations; youth organizations, environmental
organizations, among others.
F indicator “CBLD - 9 Percentage of organizations assisted by the United States

Government with improvements in their performance” differs from the previous one in that:
• Within its definition of assisted organizations, it includes educational and

research institutions, government agencies (national or sub-national), health
services entities, and for profit and non-profit organizations.
• Performance improvements can be measured through different methods, e.g.

accreditation processes, ISO standards, OCA measurement tools. The
Organizational Performance Index -OPI, can be one of them.
• Progress on this indicator must meet all the denominator and numerator
requirements outlined in the standardized PIRS.
In conclusion, these indicators are complementary and an Activity could have both indicators in its
AMELP, having clear that CBLD-9 could include the number of organizations that were assessed with
the OPI.

ANNEXES

ANNEXES
Annex 1: Performance Index Reference Sheets
Annex 1A: OPI Value
USAID PERFORMANCE INDICATOR REFERENCE SHEET
NAME OF INDICATOR: OPI - ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX VALUE

Indicator number:
Name of the development objective of the Activity: DO# – X
Name of the intermediate result of the Activity: IR# – X
Name of the sub-intermediate result of the Activity: Sub-IR# – X
Is this an output indicator? NO Is it an outcome indicator? YES

Is it an F indicator? NO
DESCRIPTION
Definition:
The Organizational Performance Index (OPI) is a standardized performance assessment tool that measures organizational change at
the outcome level with a focus on external performance. As an assessment tool, it is useful for analyzing country-level trends in
capacity building support, and for making comparisons between organizations. It comprises four dimensions (effectiveness, efficiency,
relevance, and sustainability) and eight sub-areas associated with each domain: organizational results and standards (of the effectiveness
domain), service delivery and reach (of the efficiency domain), target population and learning (of the relevance domain), and resources
and social capital (of the sustainability domain).
Each one of the domains of the index is made up of two variables with four performance levels each. The performance levels describe
the current status of the organization on a scale of 1 to 4 to be read and interpreted in ascending order. The application of the OPI
requires the use of supporting documents and evidence provided by the organization. Evidence consists of official documents of the
organization, authorized and signed by the legal representative or delegate, issued within the last year.
Unit of measure: OPI score (minimum 8, maximum 32).
Data type: Number.

Disaggregated by: Domains and variables, as follows: Effectiveness-Results; Effectiveness-Organizational Standards;
Efficiency-Service Delivery; Efficiency-Reach; Relevance-Target Population; Relevance-Learning; Sustainability-
Resources; Sustainability-Social Capital. (All of them add to the indicator).
Rationale for Indicator: OPI measures organizational change at the outcome level with a focus on external
performance. This index allows establishing a link between internal organizational change and the improvements in the
lives of their beneficiaries and communities.

ANNEXES
DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
Data source: CSO providing written evidence of the activities and processes carried out by them, considered
individually, in four domains: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and sustainability and each one of their variables, in both
physical and digital format. OPI Matrix.
Method of data collection and construction: Workshops with the participation of the legal representatives and
leaders of the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the implementing partners’ team in charge of organizational
strengthening activities, USAID Colombia technical staff and/or a support team. The evidence, which constitutes the
main source of data, will be reviewed both by the organization and by the support team in charge of carrying out the
assessment independently. Any discrepancies between the assessments will be reviewed by the CSO. In addition, the
CSO will be provided with a tool to calculate the index quickly and easily and will receive feedback that will serve as a
foundation for the development of organizational strengthening plans.
Data Analysis: Support team with the documents collected.
Reporting Frequency: First measurement, at the beginning of the intervention with the organization, second or
subsequent measurements: at least every 12 months; no longer than every 18 months.
Responsible individual(s) at the implementing partner(s): Organizational strengthening specialists, Monitoring

specialists, Activity Manager.
Responsible individual(s) at USAID: AOR/COR.
Data storage location: USAID MONITOR and OPI Matrix.
TARGETS AND BASELINE
Baseline: The baseline is the initial assessment made by the organization in the four domains that constitute the index,
and it is assessed at a workshop with the participation of CSO members, IPs and the support team. This firstmeasurement
serves as a reference frame for the development of organizational strengthening plans and for the identification of changes
in external performance over time.
Targets:
• Measure organizational change at the outcome level with a focus on external performance.
• Analyze change over time against a standardized, globally recognized framework.
• Analyze country-level trends in capacity building assistance and make comparisons between organizations.
Notes on baseline:
Notes on targets:
DATA QUALITY ISSUES
Dates of data quality assessment: TBD.
Known data limitations and significance: TBD.
Actions taken or planned to address data limitations: TBD.
Date of future data quality assessments: TBD.
Procedures for future data quality assessments: TBD.

ANNEXES
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR VALUES
TARGET (NON-
FISCAL YEAR ACTUAL NOTES
CUMULATIVE)
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
CHANGES TO INDICATOR
Changes:
OTHER NOTES
Date (mm/dd/yy): Note:
THIS SHEET LAST UPDATED ON: March 2021 by MEL Activity

ANNEXES
Annex 1B: Number of organizations that apply and increase their

performance category (PMP indicator)

NAME OF INDICATOR: NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT APPLY AND INCREASE THEIR
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY
Indicator number:

DESCRIPTION
Definition:
This indicator measures the number of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) reporting an upward change in performance category in
their OPI Value as a result of assistance from the United States Government.
Performance category is understood as the qualitative description of the value of the index obtained by an organization; Each
category groups the absolute value of the index obtained by an organization, as follows:
PERFORMANCE
SCALE DESCRIPTION
CATEGORY
The organization recognizes the need and drive to strengthen the 4 domains. It is
Low 8 points necessary to implement strategies that define concrete actions to improve its
organizational performance.
The organization builds common frameworks and best practices that allow it to
9-16 points
Basic make some progress in its performance, but it requires greater efforts in all 4 OPI
domains.
17-24 points The organization demonstrates good levels of organizational performance, which
Acceptable must be reinforced, maintained and advanced towards processes of greater impact
and sustainability
The organization implements best practices that demonstrate a high capacity for
25-32 points
Outstanding organizational performance and has the ability to demonstrate its impact and
sustainability.
Only the upward changes of an organization’s performance category are reported, every twelve (12) months; for example, if an
organization is at the basic level in the first assessment (baseline), it would only be counted as progress, if 12 months after the
baseline measurement (minimum time that must elapse to carry out the second assessment) it ranks at a higher performance level,
in this case: acceptable or outstanding. For the purpose of this indicator, the level of performance an organization will always be
compared to the performance level of the previous year.

ANNEXES
Unit of measure: Organizations.
Data type: Number.
Formula: Sum of organizations that increase their performance category.
Disaggregated by: Type of organization.
Rationale for Indicator:

For USAID Colombia it is important to increase the external performance capacities of CSOs, this indicator allows USAID to know
the progress on organizational strengthening efforts and plan actions that contribute towards sustainability processes.
As an assessment tool, it is useful for analyzing country-level trends in capacity development support, and making comparisons
between organizations.

Data source: Support team. OPI Matrix with evidence.
Method of data collection and construction: The results of the OPI assessment tool available to each Implementing
Partner; With these results, each Implementing Partner can establish the number of organizations withchanges in
performance categories, and report changes.
Data Analysis: Organizational strengthening specialists, Monitoring specialists with the results and evidence collectedby
the support team.
Reporting Frequency: Annually.

Data storage location: USAID MONITOR and OPI Matrix
Baseline: The baseline is the initial assessment made by the organization in the four domains that constitute the
index and it is assessed at a workshop with the participation of CSO members, IPs and the support team. This first
measurement serves as a reference frame for the development of organizational strengthening plans and for the
identification of changes in external performance over time.
Targets:
• Analyze country-level trends in capacity building assistance and make comparisons between organizations.
Notes on baseline:
Notes on targets:

ANNEXES
DATA QUALITY ISSUES

TARGET (NON-
CUMULATIVE)
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Changes:
OTHER NOTES

ANNEXES
Annex 1C: Average OPI value
NAME OF INDICATOR: AVERAGE OPI VALUE

Indicator number:

DESCRIPTION
Definition:
This indicator measures the average value of the Organizational Performance Index, by Activity, for the group of organizationsinvolved
in the assessment.
Average OPI = ∑OPI (valued organizations) / Total organizations valued
Where;
∑ OPI (organizations) = Sum of the absolute value of the Index obtained by each organization valued.
# OPI organizations = Total number of organizations with OPI measurement in the Activity.
Unit of measure: OPI Value
Data type: Number.
Formula: ∑OPI (valued organizations) / Total organizations valued.
Disaggregated by: N/A
Rationale for Indicator:

For USAD Colombia it is important to increase the external performance capacities of CSOs, this indicator allows us to know the
progress of the strengthening of the Organizations and plan actions that contribute towards sustainability processes.
As an assessment tool, it is useful to connect internal organizational change with improvements in the lives of beneficiaries and
communities.

ANNEXES
Data source: Support team. OPI Matrix with evidence.
Method of data collection and construction: The results of the OPI assessment tool available to each
Implementing Partner; With these results, each Implementing Partner can establish the number of organizations with
changes in performance categories, and report changes.
Data Analysis: Organizational strengthening specialists, Monitoring specialists with the results and evidence collected
by the support team.
Reporting Frequency: Annually.
Data storage location: USAID MONITOR and OPI Matrix.
Baseline: The baseline is the initial assessment made by the organization in the four domains that constitute the
index and it is assessed at a workshop with the participation of CSO members, IPs and the support team. This first
measurement serves as a reference frame for the development of organizational strengthening plans and for the
identification of changes in external performance over time.
Targets:
• Analyze country-level trends in capacity building assistance, and make comparisons between organizations.
Notes on baseline:
Notes on targets:
DATA QUALITY ISSUES

ANNEXES
TARGET (NON-
CUMULATIVE)
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Changes:
OTHER NOTES

ANNEXES
Annex 2: OPI Background
For several years, a number of attempts have been made to assess the evolution of the capacities of civil
society organizations. Many private entities, academics, NGOs and cooperation organizations, among others,
have promoted methodologies to assess organizational capacities and have faced challenges such as the high
complexity of organizations, diverse and dynamic contexts, etc.
The conceptual and methodological efforts proposed by the International Development Research Center and
Universalia Management Group, which developed a conceptual framework to help organizations assess
themselves, stand out. The original outline proposed for the assessment of an organization comprises: internal
environment; organizational capacity; organizational performance; and the external environment. 13
This framework has evolved, leading to new insights that enable the assessment and evaluation of organizational
capacities and performance in a wide range of contexts. The IDRC, with the support of the Inter-American
Development Bank, further developed this approach and postulates that organizational performance is a
function of its institutional environment, capacity and organizational motivation. 14 Subsequently, Pact
International operationalized this framework and identified four organizational performance domains:
Effectiveness, Efficiency, Relevance and Sustainability. 15
Other related efforts were also led by organizations such as FAO, with the organizational performance
assessment (OPA) framework, which comprises three broad dimensions: organizational motivation,
organizational capacity, and the external environment. 16 The United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) considers that an essential element in the development of organizational capacities is the
transformation that creates and sustains change over time. This approach to capacity development
contemplates four pillars: institutional arrangements; leadership; knowledge and accountability. 17
In summary, this brief review of some of the efforts to define conceptual frameworks developed by a number
of institutions to assess organizational capacities demonstrates the interest that exists in the performance and
role played by civil society organizations in development processes; organizational strengthening is an approach
and a management tool for understanding how to promote an increase in the effectiveness of the actions of
organizations.
13 Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., Carden, F., and Plinio Montalván, G. Organizational assessment: A framework for
performance improvement. Inter-American Development Bank; International Development Research Center, 2002. http://www.
deslibris.ca/ID/424153.
14 Lusthaus, C. Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., Carden, F., and Plinio Montalván, G. Ibid.
15 PACT. Organizational Performance Index Handbook. A practical guide to the OPI tool for practitioners and development
professionals, 2015. https://www.pactworld.org/library/pacts-organizational-performance-index-handbook.
16 Rocchigiani, M., and D. Herbal. Capacity Development. Learning module 4: Organization Analysis and Development. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013. See: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/capacity_building/LM4_v2_
WEB_Light.pdf.
17 United Nations Development Programme. (2008). Practice Note: Capacity Development. 2008. See: http://content-ext.undp.org/
aplaws_publications/1449053/PN_Capacity_Development.pdf.

ANNEXES
Annex 3: References
LINKAGES project. (2016). LINKAGES Integrated Technical Organizational Capacity Assessment (ITOCA) and
Action Planning: Facilitator’s guide.
Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., & Carden, F. (1999). Enhancing organizational performance: A
toolbox for self-assessment. International Development Research Centre.
Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., Carden, F., & Plinio Montalván, G. (2002). Organizational
assessment: A framework for performance improvement. Inter-American Development Bank;
International Development Research Centre
http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/424153
PACT. (2012). Pact Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) Handbook: A practical guide to the OCA tool
for practitioners and development professionals.
PACT. (2015). Organizational Performance Index (OPI) Handbook. A practical guide to the OPI tool for
practitioners and development professionals.
UNDP. (n. d.). Índice de Capacidad Organizacional—ICO: Guía de aplicación y análisis del Índice de Capacidad
Organizacional a las agencias de desarrollo económico local. [Organizational Capacity Index - OCI: Guide for
the application and analysis of the Organizational Capacity Index to local economic development agencies.]
Rocchigiani, M., & Herbel, D. (2013). Capacity Development. Learning module 4: Organization Analysis and
Development. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
United Nations Development Programme. (2008). Practice Note: Capacity Development.

ANNEXES
Annex 4: Glossary
• Civil Society Organization (CSO): an organization that operates across multiple communities or at a
national level. It may be an NGO, a non-profit organization, a trade union, an association, etc.
• Effectiveness Domain: ability of an organization to carry out programs to a high standard and to
continuously improve their operation, in accordance with its vision, mission, objectives and goals.
• Efficiency Domain: It refers to an organization’s capacity to plan and budget for its interventions, using
technical and financial efficiency analyses.
• Ethnic Organizational Capacity Index (EOCI): is an index that measures the capacity of ethnic
organizations to manage and guide the development of their ethnic territories.
• Evidence Variable: textual documents that meet predetermined information quality criteria and serve as
the foundation for the external performance assessment of an organization.
• Follow-Up Plan: a document that describes how the organization measures the implementation of its
activities, and specifies the expected results, indicators and measurement tools.
• Implementing Partners: organizations in charge of implementing activities funded and guided by the
USAID policies and requirements in the country.
• Learning variable: organizations that adopt and implement learning outcomes to make adjustments,
changes, and/or improvements within the organization, to adapt to new contexts.
• Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: a document that describes the data needs, the data collection and
analysis process, as well as the evaluation and reporting procedures to be carried out by the organization.
• Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA): self-assessment tool used to help the organization
assess its strengths and weaknesses, clarify its vision and plan accordingly. The tool evaluates capacity in
eight key areas: 1. Governance. 2. Administration. 3. Human resources management. 4. Financial
management. 5 Organizational management. 6. Program management. 7. Project performance management,
and 8. Leadership and team dynamics.
• Organizational Capacity Index (OCI): methodological tool designed by the National Planning
Department of Colombia, for the purpose of establishing the management capacity of Community
Organizations involved in the Peace and Development Programs; it is made up of numerical scores
applied to each of the five weighted or unweighted characteristics of an organization: i) Democratic and
participatory management, ii) Economic and financial situation, iii) Management and administration, iv)
Services delivered to members or the community, v) Human resources development.
• Organizational Standards Variable: organizations creating and/or adopting and constantly implementing
standards or protocols (national, international, technical, quality, industrial, among others) and improving
them over time.
• Participatory Processes/Participatory Planning: it refers to the activities carried out by an

organization with the purpose of engaging its target population in the design, planning and implementation of
its programs and services.

ANNEXES
• Private Institutions: privately funded entities, for-profit entities and other non-governmental and non-
public institutions.
• Quality of the information: Refers to the accuracy of the information collected and focuses on ensuring
that the data collection, verification and analysis process is conducted to a high standard (so that it meets
the requirements of an internal or external Data Quality Assessment/Audit). Resources Variable: sustainable
organizations generate resources strategically, using multiple and diverse sources.
• Reach variable: organizations that deploy resources to reach their target population with clearly
articulated plans and, over time, expand the size of their target population, geographic areas and/or improve
the quality of their programs and services.
• Relevance Domain: the capacity of an organization to respond to the actual and current needs ofits
beneficiaries and to remain alert to any changes that might affect this capacity. It also implies the
organization’s ability to adjust its actions through continuous improvement and learning processes.
• Results variable: organizations that measure and analyze medium and long-term results to better serve
• their associates and/or beneficiary population.
• Service Delivery variable: organizations that develop, follow and update their work plans, define budgets
and monitoring systems, and analyze the technical and financial efficiency of their programs and services.
• Social Capital variable: sustainable organizations understand and efficiently use social capital, i.e.
relationships of trust, coordination and cooperation with other organizations and public-private institutions,
aiming at implementing their activities with long-term results.
• Strengthening Plan: a document that specifies how an organization intends to improve or strengthen its
• performance in relation to its purpose, context, resources and sustainability.
• Sustainability Domain: ability of an organization to ensure that its programs and services are supported by a
diverse group of allies and networks, along with its capacity to guarantee, maintain and manage diverse, own, local
and international sources of funding and resources (cash and/or in-kind), achieving long-term results.
• Target Population Variable: organizations that engage key and relevant actors (members, partners,
beneficiaries, allies - stakeholders) in a participatory manner, at each stage of their operations, to ensure that
the activities are oriented to real needs and are incorporated in the design and implementation of solutions.
• Work Plan: a document describing the mission, strategies, objectives and activities of the organization.

ANNEXES
www.usaid.gov


PA00XM82

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PA00XM82

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PA00XM82

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORGANIZATIONAL

PERFORMANCE INDEX -OPI-

LIST OF ACRONYMS iii

LIST OF GRAPHS AND TABLES iv

3. IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING ORGANIZATIONAL

4. ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX - OPI 4

4.2 OPI Advantages 6

6. METHODOLOGY FOR OPI CALCULATION 20

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX i

8.2 At the USAID activities level 29

8.3 At the USAID Mission level 30

8.4 Report in Monitor 31

Annex 1A OPI Value 34

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX ii

CSO Civil Society Organization

EOCI Ethnic Organizational Capacity Index

IDRC International Development Research Center

ITOCA Integrated Technical Organizational Capacity Assessment

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

OCA Organizational Capacity Assessment

OCI Organizational Capacity Index

OPI Organizational Performance Index

ROCI Reinforced Organizational Capacity Index

USAID United States Agency for International Development

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX iii

Graph 1. OPI Domains 5

Table 1. OPI Structure 9

Table 2. Efficiency domain: definition and deliverables 9

Table 3. Relevance domain: definition and variables 10

Table 4. Effectiveness domain: definition and variables 10

Table 5. Sustainability domain: definition and variables 11

Table 6. Service delivery variable: definition and levels 12

Table 7. Reach variable: definition, levels and evidence 13

Table 8. Target population variable: definition, levels and evidence 14

Table 9. Learning variable: definition, levels and evidence 15

Table 10. Results variable: definition, levels and evidence 16

Table 11. Organizational standards variable: definition, levels and evidence 17

Table 12. Resource variable: definition, levels and evidence 18

Table 13. Social capital variable: definition, levels and evidence 19

Table 14. OPI Planning Phase 23

Table 15. OPI Implementation Phase 24

Table 16. OPI Application Analysis Phase 25

Table 17. OPI Results Sharing Phase 25

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX iv

The Organizational Performance Index (OPI) is an indicator that measures

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX 1

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX 2

The OPI is a standardized measurement that Furthermore, adopting a standardized measurement

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX 3

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX 4

Graph 1. OPI Domains

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDEX 5

4.1 OPI Scope

THE OPI is a methodology that... THE OPI does not…

• Uses a standardized performance assessment tool. • Examine organizational

• Allows to analyze country-level trends in capacity building support,

4.2 OPI Advantages