text: Chapter 4
  Stability Assessment Frameworks
  This chapter begins by discussing the importance of assessing stability tasks. Then it
  presents two interagency frameworks that can support the activities of the operations
  process and enhance unity of effort.
  IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSING STABILITY TASKS
  4-1. Army commanders measure the effectiveness and performance of stability tasks in relation to
  accomplishing Army missions and achieving progress toward overall United States (U.S.) stability goals.
  Determining how completed stability tasks support overall goals, especially in post-conflict situations, is
  important but challenging because measuring effects may take months or years. Commanders need to
  establish accurate indicators and track them at repeated intervals, in coordination with interagency partners.
  Interagency assessment tools can facilitate coordination of measurement efforts. Measuring the success of
  stability tasks includes—
  * Identifying and reducing the causes of instability.
  * Reestablishing or building host-nation capability to reduce, manage, or prevent conflict.
  4-2. Army forces use the operations process described in ADRP 5-0 to plan, prepare, execute, and assess
  operations. The assessment process described in ADRP 5-0 consists of, but is not limited to—
  * Monitoring the current situation to collect relevant information.
  * Evaluating progress toward attaining end state conditions, achieving objectives, and performing
  tasks.
  * Recommending or directing action for improvement.
  4-3. The assessment frameworks discussed in this chapter can support the activities of the operations
  process. These frameworks were developed collaboratively by the departments and agencies of the U.S.
  Government to identify the root causes of instability, develop activities to diminish or mitigate them, and
  evaluate the effectiveness of the activities in fostering stability. Unified action partners commonly use these
  frameworks. They are tools for interagency planning, and they can inform Army planning and enhance
  unity of effort. These frameworks are not intended to be prescriptive. In this context, terminology usage
  may differ from standard doctrinal terminology.
  4-4. At each level of monitoring and evaluation, commanders identify lessons to improve future
  stabilization activities or sustain successful ones. For example, military forces may learn certain external
  factors prevented an activity from being successful. Subsequent efforts need to address those external
  factors or take a different approach to addressing the sources of instability.
  DISTRICT STABILITY FRAMEWORK
  4-5. To increase the effectiveness of stability missions, the United States Agency for International
  Development (known as USAID) developed the District Stability Framework. The District Stability
  Framework was designed to guide and support stabilization efforts by helping civilians and military
  organizations identify the causes of instability, develop activities to diminish or mitigate them, and evaluate
  the effectiveness of the activities in fostering stability at the tactical or operational level. The District
  Stability Framework can be used to create local stabilization plans and provide data for the Interagency
  Conflict Assessment Framework, which has a strategic (country or regional) focus. The District Stability
  Framework supports unity of effort by providing partners with a common framework to—
  * Understand an operational environment from a stability-focused perspective.
  * Maintain focus on the local population and its perceptions.