PROGRAM MANAGEMENT POLICY

Effective Date: January 1, 2022 Version: 1 Version Date: August 19, 2021
Responsible Team: Program Performance and Quality
POLICY
Supersedes: Program Management Manual
Policy Type: Tier 2 Policy Number: POL-1014

1. Purpose
Mercy Corps’ core business consists of designing and implementing programs intended to
alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build secure, productive and just
communities. The risks of poor program performance – reduced impact, doing harm, fraud,
reputational damage, lost opportunity – are great. Good program management increases impact
and accountability, improves equity, efficiency and effectiveness, and makes Mercy Corps
competitive for funding opportunities. It can free country teams from costly mid-implementation
“fixes”; spare us from reinventing processes or templates that have already been developed;
ease mid-program staff transitions; and liberate time to pursue ideas, innovate and build
strategic partnerships. Through our programs we are held accountable to communities, funders,
and ourselves. Good program management is about performance and quality – it is about
bridging the gap between strategy and results and ensuring that carefully designed targets are
achieved within the scope, time and budget allocated. Effective program management is an
imperative.

The Program Management (PM) Policy outlines minimum standards for equitable, efficient and
effective program management at Mercy Corps at each phase of the Program Lifecycle.
Through the adoption of this Policy, country teams will establish the foundation for successful
program management at Mercy Corps. The purpose of the Policy is to ensure that Mercy Corps
Country teams:

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 1

 ● Effectively, efficiently and consistently design and manage programs, leveraging
appropriate practices from the program management industries and development and
humanitarian programs globally.

● Manage programs to be on time, on scope, and on budget, and that the foundation is
laid for program performance and quality.

● Engage with and meet the program-related expectations and aspirations of our
stakeholders, including program participants, communities, partners, donors,
coordination fora and local authorities.

● Align programs with Mercy Corps’ country, regional, and global strategies.

2. Scope and Application

Scope and Application

● This policy streamlines Mercy Corps’ program management-related policies into a single
umbrella policy. This policy includes all of the program-level standards that appear in

o the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Policy, MEL

o the Community Accountability Reporting Mechanism (CARM) Policy, CARM

o and the Complex Program Guidelines. COMPLEX PROGRAMS

This policy updates and replaces the 2012 Program Management Manual and Minimum
Standards, and the Cash and Goods Minimum Standards Policies.

● This policy applies to Mercy Corps Global, Mercy Corps Europe, Mercy Corps
Netherlands, and their subsidiaries and affiliate organizations (collectively "Mercy
Corps"); Members of Mercy Corps' Boards of Directors, officers, management, team
members, seconded employees, interns, and volunteers (collectively "Team Members").

● This Policy is applicable to all Mercy Corps programs regardless of: scope, scale, size,
time, budget, funding source or if Mercy Corps is the sub-recipient of another
organization. This policy is not applicable to projects that operate independently of a
program See definitions of programs and projects below.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 2

 ● The CARM minimum standards outlined within this Policy are applicable to Mercy Corps
partners, including sub-recipients, partner organizations, contractors, consultants and
any other organization or individual that acts on Mercy Corps' behalf (collectively,
"Partners"). All other standards are recommended, but not required for partners.

● This Policy addresses standards for program management and does not address award
administration. Mercy Corps team members must implement all programs and manage
awards received in accordance with applicable donor rules and regulations and Mercy
Corps’ policies and procedures. This includes, but is not limited to, the Sub-award
Financial Management Policy where a component of the program will be implemented
by a partner/sub-recipient.

● All programs must be implemented in conjunction with Mercy Corps’ Ethics Policies and
Procedures and any accompanying standards.

Mercy Corps follows Program D Pro’s industry standard definitions for the following terms:

Portfolio A mix of active programs/projects, staffing, and budget allocated to each.

Program A group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits
and control that are not available when managed individually. In other words,
the whole (the benefit of the program) is greater than the sum of its parts (the
projects, activities and tasks). Development and humanitarian organizations
often organize projects into programs to deliver outcomes that address a broad
range of needs and achieve exponential benefits for the communities in which
they work.
Project A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,
service, or result. Projects deliver integrated outputs (deliverables), which then
result in better outcomes (results) for communities and other stakeholders (such
as donors). Projects are time-bound and focus on a requirement to deliver
specific benefits for communities and other stakeholders in ways that are cost-
effective and measurable.
In addition, Mercy Corps defines an award as:
Award An award is a single funding agreement (e.g. grant, cooperative agreement,
contract) from a donor or a pooled fund from multiple donors. An award is not
the same as a program. Some programs may be funded by multiple awards. In
contrast, other programs may be funded by a single award.

In other words, while projects can operate independently (e.g. a one-off distribution to a rapid
onset crisis), most projects are managed alongside other projects within a program by a
Program Manager to ensure that the projects are coordinated and managed to achieve an
outcome greater than they could achieve on their own. For example, a food security program
could consist of a voucher distribution project to enable community members to obtain
vegetables, a training project for farmers, and a seed distribution project for farmers. Programs

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 3

are managed within a portfolio, which is typically managed by a Director of Programs or Deputy
Country Director, and can also include regional portfolios, thematic portfolios, or portfolios of
HQ-managed programs.

At Mercy Corps, programs can be funded by a single award, or by several. This policy applies at
the program level, as opposed to the award level, unless otherwise specified. This policy
outlines minimum program management standards and does not cover award administration
requirements.

Some standards have specific applicability:

● If a program contains cash, voucher, and/or goods distributions then the Cash, voucher,
C V G
and goods distribution standards are applicable. C

● If a program contains one or more infrastructure deliverables, then the Infrastructure

I
standards are applicable.
● Standards that are only applicable to specific contexts or types of programming will
specify “as applicable.”
When a program is designated as a Complex Program, additional requirements will apply with
regards to how a program should meet the minimum standards.

Please direct questions regarding applicability to PM@[Link].

Policy Waivers
The default should always be that the minimum standards in this policy will be followed, and that
how a standard will be met is unique to each program and operating contexts. However, there
may be circumstances where a waiver(s) to a specific standard is appropriate. While program
teams are encouraged to meet the standards in the manner that is most appropriate for the
program and operating contexts, exemptions can be approved when clearly justified.

Situations that are generally not appropriate for a waiver, and should instead be addressed by
adapting how a standard is met to the context or program include:

● Short term programs

● Programs in humanitarian, complex, rapid onset, or reduced access contexts

Waiver(s) to a specific minimum standard in this policy will be addressed on a case-by-case

basis. To obtain an exception to a specific minimum standard:

1. Complete the waiver memo template

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 4

 2. Obtain the approval of the Country Director or equivalent,1 indicating agreement that an
exception to the Policy is necessary.
3. Submit the waiver memo and proof of CD approval here for consideration.
A program management expert(s) selected by each region2 will review each waiver memo, liaise
with technical team members as necessary (e.g. MEL, Infrastructure, etc.), discuss with the
submitting team as necessary, and make a recommendation on whether or not a waiver(s)
should be approved. These waiver(s) will be recorded and may be revisited where deemed
appropriate.

Certain MEL Minimum Standards will not be considered for a waiver(s), because they are either
defining criteria of a program or are mission critical. See the MEL Policy for further details.

3. Program Management Minimum Standards

Mercy Corps’ Program Management Minimum Standards and corresponding guidance were
established to support teams to design and implement efficient, effective and impactful
programs. These standards specify what is required, but in most cases offer flexibility in how it
is met. This is because Mercy Corps operates in a wide range of countries and contexts around
the world, and implements unique programs in a variety of technical sectors. Mercy Corps
encourages teams to adapt templates, tools, and processes to their needs in order to
meet the standards, with full recognition that how teams meet these standards will vary
greatly given that each program and operating environment is unique.

This Policy has accompanying guidance that outlines more detail about the standard, and
provides suggested (but not required) templates and examples from country teams. The
Performance and Quality team will update and improve the guidance that accompanies this
Policy, and welcomes teams sharing how they have used and adapted the templates and tools
to meet the standards in their specific contexts. You can find the guidance by visiting the
Program Management Toolkit, which provides guidance, templates, tools, and examples from
country teams for each standard. .

It is also essential to note that program management is an iterative process, and programs
do not proceed in a strictly linear format along the program lifecycle. In practice, Mercy Corps
team members will find that they will go back and forth between phases in order to manage the

1 For HQ-managed awards, this could be the director of the portfolio.

2 An expert will be selected by PaQ to review modification memos for headquarters managed awards.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 5

program in an adaptive and iterative manner. For example, information collected during the
Program Implementation phase will likely result in team members going back to the Program
Design or Planning phases to incorporate the new information into the program design and
planning documentation.3

Program
Program Program
Program Program
Program Program
Identification Design Planning
Planning Implementation
Implementation Closure

Program Identification
The purpose of the Program Identification phase is to engage with stakeholders, review lessons
identified across the country portfolio or wider agency, and analyze key assessment and
contextual information in order to identify a concept for potential programs. This process can,
but does not have to be, connected to specific funding opportunities. Teams can engage
stakeholders, collect documentation and data, and analyze information at any point in the
program lifecycle for use in this phase. For example, the data and feedback from community
members collected during the Program Implementation phase of one program can be used
during the Program Identification phase of another.

Program Identification Minimum Standards

1. Stakeholders are identified and consulted to establish potential program ideas (e.g.
communities, local authorities, clusters or working groups, partners, etc.).
Output: A summary of key points from stakeholder consultations, either in a written or
audio recording format. Observe the Data Protection Policy, including consent to be
interviewed/recorded.

2. Program Identification is based upon appropriate analysis, and includes a needs

assessment and/or problem analysis; a Gender Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI)
analysis; Program Risk Analysis; Safeguarding Risk Analysis, Conflict Sensitivity
Analysis (if operating in a conflict or post-conflict environment), and an analysis of
country operations needed to deliver the program.
Output: A document or several documents containing the needs assessment and/or

3 Depending on donor rules and regulations, changes may require discussions with the donor and/or a contract modification.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 6

 problem analysis; GESI analysis; Program Risk Analysis, Safeguarding Analysis;
Conflict Sensitivity Analysis (if operating in a conflict or post-conflict environment), and
country operations analysis.4

Program Design
The purpose of the Program Design Phase is to build on the analyses conducted in the Program
Identification Phase, to refine the program logic, fully cost the program and to make other
design-related decisions critical to delivering the desired impact and anticipating modifications
when it comes to implementation. The program design and budget is inputted into a funding
proposal. The Program Design Phase does not end with a proposal for a specific funding
opportunity. This is because many design elements are determined after funding is secured,
and the team analyzes and builds upon the design, often with additional analysis and
assessment information (teams should incorporate the costs of additional assessments and
staff time in their budgets as necessary).

Program Design Minimum Standards

3. A Program Manager (or equivalent) is identified to be accountable for the program. A
handover is required if the individual changes at any point in the program lifecycle.
Output: A clearly identified Program Manager (or equivalent) at every stage of the
program lifecycle, and handover documentation.5

4. A Program File is created.

Output: Program file with all identification and design documents, including the
analyses, stakeholder information, full proposal, budget and relevant communications. If
funding is successful, the Program File will remain active until program closure is
completed.

5. All proposals must include at least one type of logic model clearly articulating the
rationale, logical pathways, and key assumptions for achieving the program's outcomes

4 This may come from primary or secondary data, external, recent programmatic or country-level assessments and/or analysis,
lessons identified by other programs in-country, within Mercy Corps, or by external actors, or other forms of information-gathering. It
is acceptable to use a country-level analysis and augment it with information specific to the program. The scale of analysis (e.g. a
paragraph to a multi-page document) is dependent on the program idea and the context in which the program will be implemented.
It may be worth conducting a country- or portfolio-level gender and risk analysis, in particular, and drawing on this for program-level
analysis. This analysis will be critical in informing the program logic, program planning, and/or identifying gaps in analysis that will
need to be met in program implementation.
5 In the Program Design Phase, the person accountable for the program is often the lead program designer or the lead proposal
writer. Depending on the size and scope of the program, the person accountable for the program can be called a Program Manager,
a Chief of Party, a Team Lead or another equivalent title. Handover documentation should be available for all staffing transitions,
particularly between the Program Design and Program Planning phases.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 7

 and objectives as stated in the theory of change (TOC). MEL 1

Output: A Program Logic Model.

a. The needs assessment/problem analysis, GESI analysis, and Conflict Sensitivity

Analysis (for conflict/post-conflict contexts) must inform the formulation of the
program logic model and identification of program participant groups and sub-
groups.
Output: The needs/problem, GESI, and conflict sensitivity analysis informs the
program logic model.

6. For programs that include cash, voucher, goods, and/or infrastructure deliverables:
Cash, Voucher, Goods6 and/or infrastructure deliverables are designed taking into
account context and appropriate technical expertise:

a. Output for Infrastructure deliverables: A conceptual design package is

I
completed.
b. Output for Cash, Voucher, and Goods distributions: A Marketplace
C V G
Assessment to assess market functionality. C

c. Output for Cash distributions: A Transfer Service Provider (TSP) scoping

C
assessment to determine the available transfer service providers. C

d. Output for Cash distributions: A Regulatory Review to identify legal and

C
regulatory considerations. C

7. Program Design includes a fully costed program budget.

Output: Budget that incorporates:

a. Full costs that are estimated for the deliverables, staffing, safeguarding, gender
equity diversity and inclusion, and operational requirements of the program.

b. A final, internal performance review must be planned and budgeted on all

proposals. MEL 2

c. Budget for MEL must be at least 5% of the total award budget. MEL 3

d. Budget lines designated specifically to community accountability. CARM 2

6 Team members may conduct these assessments/analyses at the portfolio level, and augment them with location- and program-
specific information as needed. The Marketplace assessment, TSP scoping assessment, and Regulatory review should assist in
selecting the modality (cash, vouchers, or goods).

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 8

 e. For programs that have been designated as a Complex Program: Complex
Program-specific costs, including Quick Start-up Planning & Preparation (StePP)
Support costs, a Complex Program Review, and a compliance training for

program staff. COMPLEX PROGRAMS

8. The Program design and fully costed budget must incorporate the expertise of the
Program, Finance, Operations, Human Resources, Technical and MEL teams, and must
be approved by the Country Director or equivalent.
Output: Country Director or equivalent approval of program design and budget, which
also indicates cross-departmental consultation during design.

Program Planning
The purpose of the Program Planning Phase is to determine what is needed to implement the
program deliverables. This should include inputs from across departments to ensure that
program planning is comprehensive. Program Planning is also iterative and integrally linked with
the Program Implementation Phase--as the program is implemented, teams will need to use the
tools developed as part of program planning, and update them based on new and emerging
information.

Program Planning Minimum Standards

9. Start-up planning is initiated for the program. The degree of effort for start-up planning
should commensurate with the likelihood of receiving funding.
Output: Relevant action planning for the start up phase.

10. A comprehensive Program Implementation Plan (PIP) is developed and is continuously

used and updated, reviewed by Finance, Operations, MEL, Technical, and other
departments as needed, and approved by the Program Governance Structure. The PIP
must include the following, either as separate or combined documents:

a. Output: A GANTT Chart (or work plan) which reflects the work breakdown
structure, schedule, dependencies and resources required to deliver the program
logic.

b. Output: A Coded and forecasted Program Budget.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 9

 c. Output: A Program Governance Structure, outlining roles, responsibilities, and
tolerances for team members involved in the program, and a defined change
control process.7

d. Output: A Risk Register and Issues Log or equivalent tool to track, analyze and
manage risk and issues.

e. Output: Compliance tracker that outlines both donor and internal compliance-
related requirements, assigns responsibilities, and specifies deadlines.

f. Output: A Human Resource Plan, which includes recruitment, onboarding,

professional development, offboarding, up-to-date position descriptions, and a
program-level organogram.

g. Output: A Procurement Plan to track planned and actual procurements.

h. Output: A Stakeholder Management Plan to track stakeholders,

communications, and engagements.

i. Output: A Program Closure Plan to outline success criteria and the exit strategy,
including stakeholder communications.

j. A Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan must be prepared and reviewed for all
programs. An M&E Plan, at minimum, includes the following components: 1) a
Logic Model, 2) an Indicator Plan built in or uploaded to TolaData, reflecting sex
and age disaggregation (SADD) for relevant indicators, and 3) plans for

monitoring, data quality, data protection, and evaluations. MEL 4

Output: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.

k. A Learning Plan must be developed for every program. MEL 5

Output: Learning Plan.

l. A MEL Technology Plan must be completed for every program and signed off by
Country MEL (or other designated team member in the absence of Country MEL)
before implementing a technology solution for data collection, storage, protection,

7 There may be a common Program Governance Structure at the country level that is shared by all programs, or there may be a
need to outline the structure for each program, or specific programs. The Program Governance Structure defines the management
framework within which program decisions are made. It serves to ensure that the right decisions are made by the right people, at the
right time throughout the program’s lifecycle. It includes mapping roles, responsibilities, and tolerances (e.g. levels of authority) for
each role. A change control process outlines how issues, risks, programmatic decision-making, and potential programmatic changes
will be escalated through the Program Governance Structure. This is in addition to the Approval Authority Matrix, which outlines
tolerances for financial decision making.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 10

 analysis, or visualization. MEL 6

Output: MEL Technology Plan.

m. MEL deliverables, at minimum, monitoring activities, evaluations, learning events

and initiatives, quarterly / annual reviews, and DQAs must be included in the

Program Implementation Plan (PIP). MEL 7

Output: MEL deliverables and activities included in the GANTT Chart.

11. CARM procedures must be established.

a. CARM program focal point must be designated and responsibilities are reflected

in their position description. CARM 1

Output: Designated program CARM focal point with responsibilities reflected in

their updated position description (PD).

b. CARM standard operating procedures (SOP) are completed and approved8.

CARM 3

Output: Updated CARM SOP, including program-specific information.

c. Every active program has three feedback channels and community members are

sensitized on their purpose and availability.9 CARM 4

Output: Documentation of the community’s preferred feedback channels and

how this has informed channel selection.

Output: Documentation of CARM community sensitization materials.

12. Planning is conducted and coordinated among relevant departments to ensure that
program deliverables are of sufficient quality. The nature and type of these planning
documents will depend on the type of program deliverables (examples of deliverables
include a distribution, a service delivery, a training, an infrastructure project, etc.).

a. Output: Planning documents for quality deliverables, approved by relevant

departments.10

8 CARM SOPs are completed at the country-level, but must be updated with program-specific information.
9 Feedback channels must be operationalized within 90 days of program start-up (90 days from the first day of the grant
agreement). See CARM Policy for details.
10 The type of document will vary. Examples include training curriculum and methodology, scopes of work for service delivery,
SOPs for distributions and other types of deliverables, etc.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 11

 I
b. Output for Infrastructure deliverables: A completed design package.

c. Output for Cash, Voucher, and Goods distributions: Standard Operating

Procedures that include internal controls must be prepared and followed for
C V G
distribution activities.11 C

d. Output for Cash distributions: Transfer service provider (TSP) Scope of Work
C
and Contract. C

e. Output for Voucher distributions: Scope of Work and agreements with

V
vendors.

13. For all programs that target participants (either individuals or groups): Standard
Operating Procedures for participant selection and verification (including selection
criteria) are developed. Participant data is tracked and documented in a secure,
organized manner that adheres with the Mercy Corps Responsible Data Policy and is
outlined in the SOPs.12, 13
Output: Participant Criteria, Selection and Verification Process SOPs.

14. The Program File is maintained and updated according to the Record Retention Policy.

a. As part of the Program File, MEL folders for indicators must be created and
structured to store all raw and analytic datasets / evidence, data collection tools,

analysis workbooks, and related documentation. MEL 8

Output: MEL folders exist within the Program File

b. All program data must be collected, stored, and destroyed in accordance with the
Mercy Corps Responsible Data Policy and donor-specific requirements, including
provision of voluntary, informed consent and the de-identification or assurance
that data, which enables the identification of program participants (PII), is stored

11 Similar to the above, if different programs are following the same process to distribute cash, vouchers and goods, one SOP may
be used across programs. However, differences in location, modality, and delivery mechanism may require separate SOPs or at
minimum, SOP annexes.
12 It is acceptable to use the same Participant Selection and Verification SOP across programs, provided that the programs are all
selecting participants in the exact same way. However, if the criteria and process used differ, (as is often the case, due to different
locations or programmatic objectives), separate SOPs - or SOP annexes - are required.
13 Please refer to the Child Safeguarding Policy if collecting identifying information or images of children or youth (under 18 years of
age) during the participant selection, registration or management processes.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 12

 securely and only accessible to necessary Mercy Corps team members. MEL 9

Output: M&E Plan includes a data protection plan.

Program Implementation
The Program Implementation Phase is where teams will spend most of their time. The Program
Implementation Phase and the Program Planning Phase are linked; once in implementation,
changes to the context and/or new information will necessitate updates to the plans developed
in the Program Planning Phase. This process combines adaptation with action. Program
Managers and other team members must be able to see the whole picture, incorporate new
information when needed, work toward outcomes in an iterative manner, and keep various
stakeholders informed throughout the process.

Program Implementation Minimum Standards

15. The program is managed adaptively, utilizing data and analysis in order to iteratively
make decisions and adjustments in response to new information and changes in context.
If changes to the program exceed the tolerances of the program manager, they must be
escalated through the Program Governance Structure (see #10.c).
Output: Updates to the components of the Program Implementation Plan and Program
Design if applicable, documentation showing that changes were escalated through the
Program Governance Structure.

a. A kick-off meeting is held to review the program design and planning

documentation with the relevant Mercy Corps team members across
departments and where relevant partner staff.
Output: Kick-off meeting minutes

b. Program management and coordination meetings are held every month with
appropriate representatives from relevant departments (programs, MEL, finance,
operations, human resources, etc.).
Output: Updated Program Implementation Plan components based on new and
emerging information, including the following as relevant and as data is available:

▪ Progress compared to planned activities in the GANTT chart and Budget

versus Actuals (including implementation by partners), leading to re-planning,
budgeting and phasing as required.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 13

 ▪ Changes in the operating environment, including shocks, stresses and
conflict.

▪ Ongoing and emerging risks and active issues, outlined in an Issues Log and
Risk Register.

c. Program review sessions are held at least quarterly14 to review program learning,
feedback from partners, stakeholders, communities, and participants, deliverable
quality assurance checks (see Standard 16), and MEL data, including SADD and
other disaggregated data as informed by the GESI analysis. "
Output: Updated Program Implementation Plan components based on new and
emerging information from MEL data, feedback, quality assurance checks and
other sources.

▪ Program teams must conduct quarterly program review sessions using an

up-to-date Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) from TolaData to
understand progress against baselines and stated targets. Identified
changes to the logic model or indicators, including definitions, targets,
and/or data collection, quality, protection, or analysis methods/tools must

be reflected in TolaData. MEL 12

Output: Program Review Session Agendas.

16. As deliverables are implemented, quality control checks are completed to determine if
the deliverables are being implemented according to quality specifications outlined in the
planning documents (see Standard #12). The way quality control checks are conducted
will vary depending on the type of deliverable.15
Output: Documentation of completed quality control checks. The type, scope, and
frequency of the documentation will depend on the type of deliverable.

a. Outputs for infrastructure deliverables: Construction observation reports,

construction administration documentation, and handover/closure documentation
I
are completed.

14 Program learning, feedback, and MEL data can also be discussed during the monthly Program management and coordination
meetings outlined in standard #15b.
15 The way quality assurance checks are conducted will vary by deliverable type. For example, a quality assurance check for a
training could include pre- and post-tests, or checklist or monitoring form for a site visit to observe the training curriculum and
methodology in action.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 14

 b. Output for Cash, Voucher and Goods distributions: Analysis of post-
C V G
distribution monitoring results following each distribution. C

c. Output for Cash, Voucher and Goods distributions: Reconciliation of the

distribution, including documentation that confirms receipt by the participant.
C V G
C

17. Monitoring, evaluation and learning is conducted throughout program implementation.

a. Results for all indicators must be updated regularly in TolaData to fulfill the
program's monitoring, evaluation, and learning needs, as outlined in the M&E,
Learning, and Technology Plans. Supporting evidence must be properly linked in

TolaData. MEL 10

Output: TolaData Results and Evidence Metrics.

b. All programs must regularly conduct, document, and follow-up on internal Data
Quality Assessments (DQAs) every 6 months on at least 5% of the indicators that

have completed two rounds of data collection and analysis. MEL 11

Output: DQA Reports

c. Scopes of Work (SOWs) for planned MEL-related studies, evaluations, and

assessments must be completed at least 3 months prior to the planned data
collection training start date. All SOWs must adhere to Mercy Corps guidance.

MEL 13

Output: SOWs.

18. CARM must be managed throughout program implementation.

a. All feedback is documented and managed in a CARM database. CARM 5

Output: CARM database, with all required data fields

b. Feedback is classified according to six standard Grades and grading is verified.
CARM 6

Output: CARM database, with each piece of feedback graded according to six
standard Grades, and with the date of verification recorded
c. Appropriate action is taken for all feedback received based on feedback Grade.
CARM 7

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 15

 Output: CARM database, with each piece of feedback referred to appropriate
colleague(s) based on feedback Grade, in line with procedures in the CARM
SOP
d. All grade 5 and 6 feedback is reported directly and immediately to the Integrity

Hotline and the informant’s identity is protected. CARM 8

Output: CARM database, with PII of all Grade 5 and 6 feedback removed

e. The feedback loop is closed for all non-anonymous feedback. CARM 9

Output: CARM database, with all anonymous and open feedback filtered out

Program Closure
The purpose of the Program Closure Phase is to determine if success criteria have been met,
and put in place measures to enhance the sustainability of program outcomes, and/or ensure
that the closure of the program does not cause harm among communities and program
participants. Program closure also includes the documentation to close out the award,
transitioning team members to new roles, keeping stakeholders and program participants
informed and updated, handing over deliverables, and solidifying the learning from the program
for future program identification and design.

Program Closure Minimum Standards

19. A Program Closure Plan is updated and executed at least 3 months prior to the close of
the Program to close out program funding and secure sustainable outcomes (See
Standard 10.i).
Output: Program Closure Plan.

a. Deliverables documentation, including handover documentation for

equipment/assets/materials and deliverables transitioned to external
stakeholders, if applicable.
Output: Close-out documentation for deliverables as needed, including
documentation of handover, if applicable.

20. A final, internal performance review must be conducted for all programs and findings
shared with Mercy Corps, local partners / stakeholders, and program participants. The
final, internal performance review report must include final measurements on all

indicators and documentation of lessons learned. MEL 14

Output: Final Internal Performance Review Report.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 16

 21. Program File is complete according to the Record Retention Policy.
Output: Completed Program File.

a. All data and information in MEL folders and in TolaData must be up-to-date and
securely stored. The MEL folders and TolaData must be signed-off as complete

per the Final 90-Day Checklist. MEL 15

Output: MEL folders and TolaData Results and Evidence Metrics.

4. Certifications
In addition to the standards outlined above, the Program Management Policy requires that
certain team members are certified in the sector specific methodologies of Project D Pro and
recommends Program D Pro for some team members. These methodologies, created by
PM4NGOs, are now considered industry standard and provide professional credentials for
individuals involved in project and program management. The certification allows individuals to
demonstrate knowledge of internationally established principles and disciplines for managing
development projects and programs.

Mercy Corps requires Project D Pro 1 Certification within the first six months of starting a
relevant role for team members holding the following positions:

● Project Manager
● Program Manager / Program Director
● Chief of Party (CoP)
● Country Director
● Deputy Country Director
● Director of Programs
● Head of Office
● Senior Operations position
● Senior M&E position

Mercy Corps recommends and encourages team members in other departments that contribute
to program management to obtain a Project D Pro certification. Examples include Global
Procurement and Logistics, Finance, Global Programs, etc.

Mercy Corps recognizes that some team members will require advanced certifications to reflect
greater responsibility in ensuring quality program management. Mercy Corps recommends the
Program D Pro Certification for the following team members:

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 17

 ● All Directors of Programs
● Regional Directors
● Deputy Regional Directors
● Senior Program Officers; and
● Any team member managing a program of $1 million USD or more and holding any of
these positions:
o Program Manager
o Country Director
o Program Director
o Senior Operations positions
o Head of Office
o Chief of Party

Project and Program management certification provides knowledge, tools and a common
language for effective project and program management. It is up to each team member to adapt
and apply the knowledge gained through the certification process. The project and program
management skills gained through certification complement Mercy Corps' Program
Management approach and Minimum Standards.

Where an individual already holds a corporate project management certification of equivalence

(e.g. PMP or PRINCE 2) they are not required to become certified in Project or Program D Pro,
but must still undergo the relevant training to ensure that Mercy Corps uses a consistent project
and program management language.

To learn more about the certification process, including how to get certified, please go here.

5. Related Policies, Procedures and Guidance

This policy streamlines Mercy Corps’ program management-related policies into a single
umbrella policy. This policy includes all of the program-level standards that appear in the
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Policy, the Community Accountability Reporting
Mechanism (CARM) Policy, and the Complex Program Guidelines. This policy updates and
replaces the 2012 Program Management Manual and Minimum Standards, and the Cash and
Goods Minimum Standards Policies.

Guidance accompanies this Policy, and can be found in the Program Management Toolkit, the
PM@MC Hub page, and/or the Program Management Collection in the Digital Library.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 18

Other related policies, procedures and guidance can be found here:

● Community Accountability Reporting Mechanism (CARM) Policy

● CARM Digital Library page
● Cash and Voucher Assistance Digital Library page
● Child Safeguarding Policy
● Complex Programs
● Goods Distribution Digital Library page
● Infrastructure Manual
● Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Policy
● Program D Pro Certifications
● Record Retention Policy version 1.0 (2013-2021)
● Record Retention Policy version 1.1 (January 1, 2022)
● MEL Wiki

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 19

 6. Definitions and Acronyms
Activity One or more tasks that, upon completion, lead to the next phase of the
project. Activity is a program management term recognized by a variety of
industries. Mercy Corps often uses the term “activity” to refer to what the
program management field defines as a “deliverable.”
Analysis Refers to the process of taking existing information and examining it.
Assessment Refers to collecting and/or collating primary and secondary information to
identify and understand an issue or context.
Award An award is a single funding agreement (e.g. grant, cooperative agreement,
contract) from a donor or a pooled fund from multiple donors. An award is not
the same as a program. Some programs may be funded by multiple awards.
In contrast, other programs may be funded by a single award.
Award The efforts that go into identifying a funding opportunity, developing a
Administration winning proposal, administering, and closing awards at Mercy Corps.
Cash Refers to a modality where cash is directly provided to program participants
to procure their own goods and services that link to programmatic objectives.
It is an approach that builds upon linkages, capacities, incentives and
relationships to encourage effective market recovery. Cash is a modality for
delivering assistance; it is not a sector or program on its own.
Community Community Accountability Reporting Mechanism (CARM) is a channel for
Accountability any and all community members to provide feedback, suggestions,
Reporting complaints, and concerns, in a manner that is safe, confidential, transparent,
Mechanism and accessible, enabling Mercy Corps to respond and make any necessary
programmatic or safeguarding adaptations and to ensure the safety, security,
and empowerment of program participants.
Deliverable : The integrated output of a project. The exact nature of a deliverable will
depend on the type of project. Examples include a completed cash
distribution, a completed market stall renovation, or training course.
“Deliverable” is a program management term recognized by a variety of
industries.
GANTT Chart Scheduling tools commonly used at a project level. At a program level, the
Gantt Chart provides an useful overview of the dependences and
relationships between different elements, reflecting the timeline for the whole
program.
Goods In-kind items distributed in large quantities to program participants, including
agricultural and livelihood-related items, Food, Non-Food Items (NFI), and
Pharmaceutical items.
Infrastructure Physical resources – facilities or structures – which enable communities to
perform a function. Examples of infrastructure may include: roads, pipelines,
buildings (schools, supply warehouses, latrine facilities), water treatment
plants, pump stations, irrigation, and reservoirs. Infrastructure projects
include design, construction, and operational turn-over while some of these
projects also require environmental assessments, local permitting, utility
relocations, and testing

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 20

Issue A risk to a program or project has occurred. It can take the form of an
unresolved decision, situation, or problem that will significantly impact
program or project deliverables.
Issues Log Tool for capturing problems that arise in multiple projects, enabling the
Program Manager to see if a delay or problem in one project could have an
impact on another, and then communicating with relevant teams to ensure a
prompt response
Partner Sub-recipients, partner organizations, contractors, consultants and any other
organization or individual that acts on Mercy Corps' behalf (collectively,
"Partners")
Portfolio A mix of active programs/projects, staffing, and budget allocated to each.
Project A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,
service, or result. Based on this definition, the purpose of project
management is to plan, organize and manage resources to bring about the
successful completion of specific project goals, outcomes and outputs.
Program Group of related projects managed in a coordinated way to obtain benefits
and control that are not available when managed individually.
Program The Program Governance Structure defines the management framework
Governance within which program decisions are made. It serves to ensure that the right
Structure decisions, made by the right people, at the right time throughout the
program’s lifecycle. It includes mapping roles, responsibilities, and tolerances
(e.g. levels of authority) for each role. A change control process outlines how
issues, risks, programmatic decision-making, and potential programmatic
changes will be escalated through the Program Governance Structure. This
is in addition to the Approval Authority Matrix, which outlines tolerances for
financial decision making.
Program A map of a program from beginning to end. The program lifecycle consists of
Lifecycle five phases: Program Identification, Program Design, Program Planning,
Program Implementation, and Program Closure.
Risk The potential effect of uncertainty on program and project objectives.
Risk register A ‘living’ document that identifies and categorizes program level risks and is
used to develop appropriate solutions. This Risk Register is constantly being
assessed and updated.
Safeguarding Our responsibility to ensure that our program activities, team members, and
partners do not commit abuse, exploitation, or harassment; specifically that
they adhere to Mercy Corps’ Sexual Exploitation and Abuse of Participants
and Community Members, Child Safeguarding, Sexual Misconduct, and Anti-
Trafficking Policies.
Stakeholders Program participants, program bystanders, local partners, international
partners, sub-recipients, public and/or government sector partners, private
sector partners, and any other individual or entity present in a Mercy Corps
program intervention area or acting on Mercy Corps’ behalf.
Technical Refers to expertise or best practices within a particular sector (e.g.
Infrastructure, WASH, Markets, etc.) or type of programming (e.g. Cash or
Vouchers). May also refer to a team member with the expertise and skills to
advise on quality within a particular sector or type of program.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 21

Tolerance Level of authority that a particular position has to make programmatic
decisions.
Voucher A paper or electronic coupon that can be exchanged for goods or services
with pre-determined vendors. Vouchers are a modality for delivering
assistance; it is not a sector or program on its own.

7. Roles and Responsibilities

Programs are essential to achieving Mercy Corps’ mission. Directors of Programs are
responsible for ensuring that all programs within their portfolio adopt the minimum standards in
this Policy. Program Leads (Managers, Chiefs of Party, Program Directors, etc.) are responsible
for achieving the minimum standards outlined in the Program Management Policy as a whole.
At the same time, this policy reflects the cross-functional nature of program delivery and
includes specific responsibilities that fall under a variety of positions, including MEL, CARM,
Finance, Procurement, among others. Accordingly, various roles and functions share
responsibility for achieving all of the minimum standards. The MEL Policy contains
recommendations for responsible positions for MEL standards. Ultimately, the Country Director
or equivalent is accountable for the adoption of the Program Management Policy in their
respective countries or portfolios.

Given the breadth, diversity and complexity of the programs and contexts where Mercy Corps
operates, this Policy does not mandate specific roles and responsibilities within program
management. The Program Implementation Plan (Minimum Standard #10) contains a
requirement for a documented Program Governance Structure (#10.c). The Program
Governance Structure defines the management framework within which program decisions are
made. It serves to ensure that the right decisions are made by the right people, at the right time
throughout the program’s lifecycle. It includes mapping roles, responsibilities, and tolerances
(e.g. levels of authority) for each role. A change control process outlines how issues, risks,
programmatic decision-making, and potential programmatic changes will be escalated through
the Program Governance Structure. The intention behind this standard is to ensure that roles
and responsibilities are solidified in a way that makes the most sense for each program and
context.

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 22

 8. Policy Governance
Responsible Team Program Performance and Quality (PaQ)

Policy Owner Vice President of Program Performance and Quality

Policy Approver Executive Team

Last Reviewed June 2021

Next Review Date July 1, 2023

MERCY CORPS Program Management Policy 23