text: Stability Assessment Frameworks
  that measure progress in addressing each source of instability. The second step of the District Stability
  Framework, analysis, consists of four tasks: identify potential sources of instability, vet each source against
  instability criteria, determine if the source meets two of the three instability criteria, and prioritize the
  sources of instability. The instability criteria are—
  * Decreased support for the government or legitimate governance institution.
  * Increased support for adversaries or enemies.
  * Undermining of the normal functioning of society.
  After identifying and prioritizing the sources of instability, practitioners fill out a tactical stability matrix
  for each source of instability.
  DESIGN
  4-10. In the third step of the District Stability Framework, practitioners design, prioritize, and synchronize
  stabilization activities. The stability working group develops activities to diminish the sources of instability
  identified during the analysis step. The process begins by brainstorming potential stabilization activities. It
  continues by filtering and refining the proposed activities against a set of stability criteria, design
  principles, and resource availability. This step is similar to the Army design methodology’s activities
  develop an operational approach and develop the plan, described in ADRP 5-0.
  MONITORING AND EVALUATION
  4-11. The final step in the District Stability Framework takes place during and after the implementation of
  stability activities. Monitoring and evaluation are conducted in three ways:
  * Measures of performance: track implementation of an activity.
  * Measures of effectiveness: measure the effect that an activity achieved.
  * Overall stability: assess the overall stabilizing effect of all the activities conducted over a longer
  period, as well as the influence of external factors.
  4-12. As practitioners conduct this monitoring and evaluation, they identify lessons about what worked,
  what did not work, and what partners can do to improve their stability efforts as they repeat the District
  Stability Framework process in the future.
  4-13. The District Stability Framework can support effective monitoring, evaluating, and decisionmaking.
  It focuses on the perceptions of the population and informs a common operational picture for Army units
  and their interagency partners. Furthermore, it helps inform and influence audiences by identifying themes
  that resonate with the population.
  INTERAGENCY CONFLICT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
  4-14. Interagency partners begin helping host nations prevent, mitigate, and recover from violent conflict
  by developing shared understanding about the sources of violent conflict or civil strife. To assess conflict
  situations systemically and collaboratively, interagency teams use a tool known as the Interagency Conflict
  Assessment Framework (ICAF), published by the Department of State in 2008. The ICAF supports
  interagency planning for conflict prevention, mitigation, and stabilization.
  4-15. Army forces conducting stability operations often are involved in interagency processes. To be
  effective, Army forces should be familiar with the ICAF. Army forces frequently participate in interagency
  conflict assessment activities. Using the ICAF for interagency activities also informs Army operational
  assessments.
  PURPOSE OF THE INTERAGENCY CONFLICT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
  4-16. The ICAF provides interagency partners a framework for developing a common perspective about
  the dynamics driving and mitigating violent conflict in a country. Partners use the ICAF to create shared
  understanding that informs national policy and planning decisions. The ICAF may also be used to inform
  strategic-level decisionmaking.