Performance Evaluation of the Alternative 
Resources in Media (ARM) Project
Mid-term Evaluation Report
January 2013
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Arnold R. Isaacs and Suren Deheryan through Social Impact, Inc.
Cover Photo: Master class for cameramen in convergent media environment: a well-known Ukrainian cameraman 
Mikhayil Lebedev explaining the structure of the camera. Photograph courtesy of ARM Project, April 2012.
PERFORMANCE 
EVALUATION OF THE 
ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES 
IN MEDIA (ARM) PROJECT 
Mid-term Evaluation Report
USAID/ARMENIA 
January 25, 2013
Contract # AID-RAN-I-00-09-00019 
Task Order # AID-111-TO-12-00002
Evaluation of Five USAID/Armenia Activities 
DISCLAIMER
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The evaluation team is grateful to the ARM chief of party and the heads of the three consortium 
partners for their cooperation in providing information and candidly responding to our questions. Staff 
members of Internews Armenia, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, and the Yerevan Press Club were 
similarly open and helpful, as were the partners and beneficiaries whom we interviewed for this report. 
We thank them all for their assistance.
4 
CONTENTS
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions.............................................................................................................. 12
Project Background......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Evaluation Methods & Limitations............................................................................................................................... 16
Findings, Conclusions & Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 18
Key Question #1......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Findings...................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Key Question #2......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Findings...................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 22
Key Question #3......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Findings...................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 25
Key Question #4......................................................................................................................................................... 26
Findings...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 27
Key Question #5......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Findings...................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................................. 28
Gender...................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Recommendations...................................................................................................................................................... 30
Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work................................................................................................................ 33
Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations..................................................................................................... 42
Annex III: Sources of Information........................................................................................................................... 44
Annex IV: Data Collection Instruments................................................................................................................ 49
Annex V: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest............................................................................................... 51
5 
ACRONYMS
ARM Alternative Resources in Media
FY Fiscal Year
IMS Internews Media Support
IREX International Research & Exchanges Board
KQ Key Evaluation Question
MAG Media Advocacy Group
MEO Media Ethics Observatory
NGO Non-governmental organization
SOW Statement of Work 
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
6 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The main purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to inform USAID’s determination on 
whether the set programmatic goals and targets are being achieved, and whether the initial designs of 
the projects are still valid in leading to the achievement of the original objectives. Specifically, findings 
from the mid-term evaluation are designed to inform future work plans of the relevant projects, as well 
as designs of future similar activities. The evaluation findings are intended to be used primarily by 
USAID/Armenia, the respective implementing partners, and by interested government entities where 
applicable. Relevant recommendations from this evaluation may be used by project stakeholders in 
developing future work plans. 
The evaluation addresses a set of five Key Questions (KQs) focused on identifying (a) what changes should 
be made in the approaches and directions of the current program, and (b) what recommendations can be 
made for the design of future media programs. 
The KQs, as stated in the Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW) are:
(1) How relevant has the ARM project intervention been to the media field challenges in Armenia?
(2) To what extent has the project contributed to creating opportunities for (a) a diversity of 
alternative sources of information and opinion, (b) increased access to alternative sources of 
information and opinion, and (c) advocacy for improved enabling environment for media 
independence? 
(3) What has the project done or mechanisms has it created to ensure that the project products 
will be sustained?
(4) What have been the added value and/or drawbacks of the project management structure 
(consortium of three local organizations with an unaffiliated Chief of Party)?
(5) How successful has the project been in leveraging resources of (a) the skills and organizational 
strengths of the consortium members, and (b) private and other donor partnerships?
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Alternative Resources in Media (ARM) is a $4 million, four-year program now entering the second 
half of its period of implementation. The program has three objectives: (1) "supporting production and 
dissemination of alternative content through multiple high and low tech platforms"; (2) "building 
consumer demand for news and information by promoting media literacy, critical analysis, and use of 
latest web and mobile-based media applications; and (3) "encouraging public advocacy on media-related 
issues. The broader goal, as stated by USAID, is to “assist citizens to transform themselves from passive 
users to active information producers in an otherwise controlled media environment.”
The ARM project’s inception and implementation has coincided with two recent nationwide trends. One 
is widespread distrust of news in traditional media, particularly television, which is commonly viewed as 
controlled by state authorities and powerful business interests linked to them. The other trend is an 
explosion of “new media” and a rapid increase in Internet use. The change is dramatically highlighted by 
7 
research indicating that the number of Armenians who receive news from Internet sources may now be
equal to the audience for TV news shows. The first trend increases demand for alternative information, 
while the second increases the means to transmit it and people's ability to receive and use it. Thus, both 
phenomena make ARM a timely and relevant endeavor. 
ARM's management is a four-legged stool: three Armenian partners (Internews Armenia, Eurasia 
Partnership Foundation, and the Yerevan Press Club) and a Chief of Party not affiliated with any of the 
partners. Although the leadership operates as a consortium and commonly uses that term to describe 
itself, in fact it is not formally a consortium. The recipient of the USAID grant is the international U.S.-
based Internews organization, which also hired the Chief of Party, and the Armenian partners are 
technically sub-grantees. In practice, however, they have functioned from the start as members of a 
consortium – a word that will be used in this evaluation with the understanding that it refers to a de 
facto arrangement and not a formal one. To avoid confusion, the name Internews-U.S. will be used for 
the international Internews (though not its formal name) and Internews Armenia for the Armenian 
organization (also referred to in ARM documents as Internews Media Support, or IMS).
ARM's activities are profuse and diverse. Significant projects include:
• Establishing regional information centers (known as Infotuns) that offer computer literacy 
training and online interaction opportunities to residents in five regional towns. 
• Multiple training programs for professional journalists, "citizen contributors," bloggers, social 
media users, etc.
• Grants to individuals and organizations for a broad range of projects aimed at widening the 
audience for alternative information and giving citizens a platform to make their voices heard on 
community and policy issues. Among these are grants assisting two traditional news 
organizations navigate the transition to multimedia coverage, and one in support of the "i￾Ditord" ("i-Observer") project that helped journalists, election observers and voters use 
alternative media resources to monitor and report abuses or irregularities in the May 2012 
parliamentary election.
• Drafting a proposed media literacy curriculum for use in Armenian schools. This is one of 
numerous activities aimed at raising awareness and increasing public knowledge and 
understanding of alternative media sources. 
• Numerous activities to monitor media and encourage public awareness and discussion of media 
issues, advocate greater media freedom, and promote self-regulation of disputes in place of legal 
action.
EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
The evaluation team employed a comprehensive qualitative evaluation design consisting of thorough 
program document review, key informant interviews with program beneficiaries and stakeholders, and 
direct observation of ARM project sites. The findings of this evaluation are based primarily on interviews
– nearly 50 in total – with program organizers and managers, beneficiaries, and expert observers; review 
of work plans, progress reports, and other relevant documents; and visits to selected sites (including 
two outside Yerevan) where ARM or its grant recipients are conducting or have carried out a variety of 
project-related activities. Interview subjects were selected in an attempt to capture as wide a variety of 
involvement in differing media activities and different perspectives on ARM and the Armenian media 
8 
environment as possible. Key informants included the Chief of Party and the heads of the three 
organizations primarily responsible for designing and implementing the program (Internews Armenia, 
Eurasia Partnership Foundation, Yerevan Press Club). Also interviewed were staff members of those 
organizations who are the coordinators for specific program areas -- e.g. grants, regional information 
centers, media monitoring, proposed media literacy curriculum for schools, advocacy for legal reform 
and voluntary self-regulation, etc. -- and selected recipients of grants, both those awarded to individuals 
and those given to existing media or civil society organizations. To ascertain the subjects and range of 
alternative information the program has helped create, the content of several websites supported by 
ARM grants was also reviewed by the evaluation team. 
Given the short amount of time allotted for this evaluation, data gleaned from interviewees is subject to 
some degree of selection bias. To mitigate this bias, as previously stated, the evaluation team made 
every attempt to collect data from subjects representative of the media landscape as a whole. This was 
done in consultation with USAID staff and through thorough review of project reports and other 
documents. 
ARM's goal, broadly stated, is changing the consciousness of the Armenian public. By definition, this is 
not subject to exact measurement. Nor is it possible to isolate the effects of a particular program from 
those of broader changes in the media world and the public life of Armenian society. Thus the available 
quantitative data, such as numbers of people receiving training, or the count of visitors to ARM￾supported online media sites, cannot constitute a comprehensive measurement of ARM's mid-term 
results. While it is possible to identify particular news stories initiated by ARM-supported projects that 
have led to citizen action challenging government decisions, such examples only serve to illustrate, 
rather than quantify, a much broader trend in the public life of the country. 
A further limitation is that ARM's activities are too numerous and varied for an evaluation to 
independently examine more than a limited number of activities in the time available. The evaluation 
team’s findings and conclusions are thus necessarily based on examples, rather than the full range of 
activities -- e.g., visits to two of the five regional information centers and interviews with eight of 33 
grant recipients. 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
FINDINGS 
ARM has conducted multiple training programs for professional journalists, "citizen contributors," 
bloggers, social media users, etc., while awarding grants to individuals and organizations for a wide range 
of projects aimed at widening the audience for alternative information and giving citizens a platform to 
make their voices heard on community and policy issues. ARM also assists traditional news organizations 
navigate the transition to multimedia coverage, and has developed a proposed media literacy curriculum 
for use in Armenian schools. Most of ARM’s projects are integrated in existing structures that were well 
established and active before the ARM program began and are expected to continue after ARM ends. In 
some cases, the sustaining organization will be one of the three consortium members. In others, it will 
be one of the many groups ARM has partnered with to carry out different parts of the program.
Regional information centers (known as Infotuns, or "info-houses") have offered computer literacy 
training and online interaction opportunities to residents of all ages in five regional towns. Through the 
Infotuns, in ARM's first two years of operation, 2,800 citizens received training in new media tools, basic 
computer skills, and citizen reporting. In addition, ARM organized a variety of community meetings and 
discussions on media issues and self-regulation. 
9 
Leaders of partner organizations have known each other for many years, have cooperated in many ways 
in the past, share common values and goals, and have strong mutual respect and trust. They report that 
they have been able to resolve different views without damaging their relations, and have carried out 
their parts of the project without competing for resources. An additional significant benefit of the 
consortium structure is that joint efforts and financial and organizational support from ARM help 
strengthen capacities of the three consortium partners, making their ongoing activities more effective. 
An illustrative example is the Media Ethics Observatory (MEO), a project originally undertaken by the 
Yerevan Press Club. 
In the media advocacy area, ARM-supported activities are conducted in cooperation with numerous 
other groups, such as the 20 members of the Media Advocacy Group (MAG) that was formed at ARM's 
initiative and coordinated by the Yerevan Press Club. This coalition-building approach has helped bring
together industry representatives, legal specialists, media professionals, and advocates of media reform.
CONCLUSIONS
• ARM's efforts have been and continue to be highly relevant to the rapidly changing media 
environment in Armenia (Question 1); 
• ARM has made significant contributions in developing alternative media sources, promoting the 
creation of alternative content, and expanding citizens' access to new information from new and 
diverse outlets, and has contributed to concrete advances on issues relating to media freedom, 
such as promoting self-regulation and in the ongoing effort to reform the broadcasting law 
(Question 2); 
• ARM has achieved success in designing projects that will be sustainable after the ARM grant 
expires. A major reason for this is that many of its activities are carried out together with 
established and ongoing organizations, including the three consortium partners and a variety of 
outside groups (Question 3);
• ARM's leadership structure has been effective, with benefits far outweighing disadvantages. The 
partners have worked collegially, sharing common goals and values. The consortium 
arrangement allows the program to take advantage of the long experience and complementary 
strengths of the three partner organizations, while in turn further strengthening those 
organizations' capacities. We also conclude that the structure contributes greatly to the 
sustainability of its many projects (Question 4); 
• ARM has had considerable success in leveraging skills and resources both from its consortium 
member organizations and from many other groups it has collaborated with to implement its 
projects (Question 5).
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 
In the remaining project period, it is generally recommended that the ARM project look for ways to be 
more selective in the activities it supports, giving more focus and resources to those that are most 
relevant and effective. Specifically, it is recommended that ARM:
• Establish additional Infotuns (regional information centers);
10
• Take initiatives to support the use of new media tools to promote democratic processes and 
principles in the February 2013 presidential election. In cooperation with national and 
international election monitoring groups, ARM should use its experience and knowledge of new 
media in projects to help inform citizens about issues, candidates, interest groups, and proper 
election process, and to assist journalists, monitors, and voters to observe and to report and 
correct irregularities in campaigning, balloting, and vote counting; 
• Be even more creative and proactive in efforts to promote media literacy and educate the 
Armenian public about the new media environment and how to understand and use the new 
knowledge that it makes available.
• Make additional grants to assist traditional media making the transition to multimedia news 
coverage. 
• Initiate exploratory discussions on the changing media market with media managers (editorial 
and business), advertisers and ad agencies, rating companies, and other relevant stakeholders. 
These discussions should seek to collect data and ideas on how media will have to adapt to the 
new environment, and develop concepts for future projects to assist in that process.. 
• Our final recommendation looks toward the longer-term future of media assistance in Armenia. 
The media landscape is changing too profoundly and too fast for us to predict what it will look 
like after the ARM program concludes. But we are certain that the evolving media environment 
will continue to pose existing challenges and new ones (for example, Armenia's scheduled shift 
to digital TV, which may endanger some independent broadcast voices in the period immediately 
following the end of the current ARM project). Thus there will be a continuing need for 
development of information resources and for citizen education on new information platforms 
and on ways to participate in public discussion. As we report in this evaluation, USAID's concept 
of this project was prophetically apt, and ARM's implementation has been capable and 
imaginative. Looking ahead, we strongly urge USAID to think about continuing and new 
challenges and about ways to continue the valuable work that ARM has started.
11
EVALUATION PURPOSE &
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
The main purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to inform USAID’s determination on 
whether the set programmatic goals and targets are being achieved, and whether the initial designs of 
the projects are still valid in leading to the achievement of the original objectives. Specifically, findings 
from the mid-term evaluation are designed to inform future work plans of the relevant projects, as well 
as designs of future similar activities adding to the Armenian media landscape. The evaluation findings are 
intended to be used primarily by USAID/Armenia, the respective implementing partners, and by 
interested government entities where applicable. Relevant recommendations from this evaluation may 
be used by project stakeholders in developing future work plans to support a rapidly growing media 
environment in Armenia. 
The evaluation addresses a set of five Key Questions (KQs) focused on identifying (a) what changes should 
be made in the approaches and directions of the current program, and (b) what recommendations can be 
made for the design of future media programs. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The KQs, as stated in the Evaluation Statement of Work (SOW) are:
(1) How relevant has the ARM project intervention been to the media field challenges in Armenia?
(2) To what extent has the project contributed to creating opportunities for (a) a diversity of 
alternative sources of information and opinion, (b) increased access to alternative sources of 
information and opinion, and (c) advocacy for improved enabling environment for media 
independence? 
(3) What has the project done or mechanisms has it created to ensure that the project products 
will be sustained?
(4) What have been the added value and/or drawbacks of the project management structure 
(consortium of three local organizations with an unaffiliated Chief of Party)?
(5) How successful has the project been in leveraging resources of (a) the skills and organizational 
strengths of the consortium members, and (b) private and other donor partnerships? 
12
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Alternative Resources in Media (ARM) is a multi-faceted, $4 million four-year project designed to (1) 
generate a freer, more diverse flow of information to the Armenian public, (2) foster reporting on 
traditional and new platforms that will give more citizens a voice in discussions of national, regional, and 
local issues, and (3) defend and promote greater freedom of expression for both old and new forms of 
media, while also promoting public understanding of media and improved professional and ethical 
standards in traditional and "citizen" journalism. The broader underlying goal, as expressed in USAID's 
description of the project, is to “assist citizens to transform themselves from passive users to active 
information producers in an otherwise controlled media environment.” The vision is of a society where 
citizens can use new information technologies to acquire knowledge, make their needs and their 
opinions known, and come together with like-minded individuals and organizations to work on issues of 
common concern. 
ARM's work in the past two years has coincided with two strong trends in the Armenian environment. 
One trend is a pervasive distrust of news from traditional media, particularly television, which has been 
Armenia's dominant source of news, but is widely seen as controlled by state authorities and business 
interests linked to them. 
In 2011 and 2012, IREX's Media Sustainability Index1 gave Armenia faintly positive ratings on freedom of 
expression, largely because of legal reforms that decriminalized libel. The Freedom House Nations in 
Transit report for 2012 gave Armenia the second-lowest score on its 7-point scale for media 
independence, and Reporters Without Borders listed Armenia 77th among 142 countries ranked in its 
World Press Freedom Index for 2011-2012. 
The Freedom House report, quoting the Yerevan-based Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, 
noted that "violence against journalists decreased in 2011 with three incidents reported in the first nine 
months of 2011, compared to eight incidents reported during the same period in 2010. However, 
several violent attacks in 2011 raised concerns about the safety of journalists. For the third time in five 
years the car of Lori TV’s editor-in-chief, Narine Avetisyan, was set on fire. Lori TV is known for its 
independent, critical reports on local government and business, and Avetisyan believes the attacks on 
her property are intended to intimidate her out of investigative journalism." 
Earlier, in its report on developments in 2010, the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists gave this 
description of the broadcast law and the media climate: 
1 See IREX Armenia Media Sustainability Index 2012; http://www.irex.org/system/files/u105/EE_MSI_2012_Armenia.pdf; 
Freedom House, Armenia Freedom of the Press 2012 and Nations in Transit 2012, Ratings and Democracy Score Summary; 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2012/armenia; 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2012%20%20NIT%20Tables.pdf; Reporters Without Borders, 2011-2012 
World Press Freedom Index; http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html; Committee to Protect Journalists, 
Attacks on the Press 2010: Armenia, http://www.cpj.org/2011/02/attacks-on-the-press-2010-armenia.php; Committee to 
Protect Freedom of Expression, Quarterly Reports and 2011 Annual Report; http://khosq.am/en/reports/; 
http://khosq.am/en/reports/annual-report-2011-2/; See also Open Society Foundation-Armenia and Journalists for the Future, 
Monitoring of Armenian Online Media Coverage of May 6. 2012 Elections to RA National Assembly; Civilitas Foundation, 
Armenia 2011, Without Illusions. 
13
 
"New legislation granted regulators broad new powers to award and revoke licenses, while putting 
severe limits on the number of provincial broadcast licenses. Self-censorship remained widespread in the 
media, as lawlessness curbed the activities of journalists, human rights defenders, and opposition 
leaders."
The second trend is a sudden increase in the development and adoption of new information technology. 
This increase not only makes alternative news available through multiple channels to a rapidly expanding 
audience; it also offers unprecedented opportunities for citizens to contribute information, express their 
views, and demand greater accountability from officials at all levels of government. By September 2012, 
reports from two rating services (Circle.AM and AGB Nielsen Media Research) suggested that the 
Armenian audience for online news may have approached or possibly even passed the audience for 
television news. Using Circle.AM's daily reports on the number of visitors to online news sites, one 
analyst has estimated that the top 10 online sites draw as many viewers as the top 10 TV news program. 
The 10 most visited sites had between 20,000 and 100,000 visitors. (Two sites supported by ARM, 
Hetq.com and Lragir.com, ranked 17th and 22nd on Circle.AM's list, incidentally.) Social media were also 
growing at a dizzying pace. In only one six-month period, the number of Facebook users more than 
doubled, reaching 350,000. Thus ARM's first two years have seen not only a sharply increased demand 
for the kind of information it seeks to promote, but also an expansion in the means of meeting that 
demand -- a technological revolution making it possible to communicate that new information to a much 
wider range of citizens than could have been predicted even a few years ago.
ARM's activities are profuse and diverse. Significant projects include:
• Establishing regional information centers (known as Infotuns) that offer computer literacy 
training and online interaction opportunities to residents in five regional towns. 
• Multiple training programs for professional journalists, "citizen contributors," bloggers, social 
media users, etc.
• Grants to individuals and organizations for a broad range of projects aimed at widening the 
audience for alternative information and giving citizens a platform to make their voices heard on 
community and policy issues. Among these are grants assisting two traditional news 
organizations navigate the transition to multimedia coverage, and one in support of the "i￾Ditord" ("i-Observer") project that helped journalists, election observers and voters use 
alternative media resources to monitor and report abuses or irregularities in the May 2012 
parliamentary election.
• Drafting a proposed media literacy curriculum for use in Armenian schools. This is one of 
numerous activities aimed at raising awareness and increasing public knowledge and 
understanding of alternative media sources. 
• Numerous activities to monitor media and encourage public awareness and discussion of media 
issues, advocate greater media freedom, and promote self-regulation of disputes in place of legal 
action.
ARM's management is a four-legged stool: three Armenian partners (Internews Armenia, Eurasia 
Partnership Foundation, and the Yerevan Press Club) and a Chief of Party not affiliated with any of the 
partners. Although the leadership operates as a consortium and commonly uses that term to describe 
itself, in fact it is not formally a consortium. The recipient of the USAID grant is the international U.S.-
based Internews organization, which also hired the Chief of Party, and the Armenian partners are 
14
technically sub-grantees. In practice, however, they have functioned from the start as members of a 
consortium – a word that will be used in this evaluation with the understanding that it refers to a de 
facto arrangement and not a formal one. To avoid confusion, the name Internews-U.S. will be used for 
the international Internews (though not its formal name) and Internews Armenia for the Armenian 
organization (also referred to in ARM documents as Internews Media Support, or IMS).
15
EVALUATION METHODS & 
LIMITATIONS
The evaluation team employed a comprehensive qualitative evaluation design consisting of thorough 
program document review, key informant interviews with program beneficiaries and stakeholders, and 
direct observation of ARM project sites. The findings of this evaluation are based primarily on interviews 
– nearly 50 in total – with program organizers and managers, beneficiaries, and expert observers; review 
of work plans, progress reports, and other relevant documents; and visits to selected sites (including 
two outside Yerevan) where ARM or its grant recipients are conducting or have carried out a variety of 
project-related activities. Interview subjects were selected in an attempt to capture as wide a variety of 
involvement in differing media activities and different perspectives on ARM and the Armenian media 
environment as possible. Key informants included the Chief of Party and the heads of the three 
organizations primarily responsible for designing and implementing the program (Internews Armenia, 
Eurasia Partnership Foundation, Yerevan Press Club). 
Also interviewed were staff members of those organizations who are the coordinators for specific 
program areas -- e.g. grants, regional information centers, media monitoring, proposed media literacy 
curriculum for schools, advocacy for legal reform and voluntary self-regulation, etc. -- and selected 
recipients of grants, both those awarded to individuals and those given to existing media or civil society 
organizations. To ascertain the subjects and range of alternative information the program has helped 
create, the content of several websites supported by ARM grants was also reviewed by the evaluation 
team, including Media.am, MyNews.am, Lragir.am, the Ecolur website, and the Circle.AM site, which 
records data on visitors to online news sites.. In addition, mainly with respect to KQs 1 and 2, a variety 
of journalists and journalism educators, media law specialists, NGO activists, and other informed 
observers who are knowledgeable about the wider Armenian media landscape were interviewed. A list 
of 42 interview subjects is in Annex IV of this report; there were several others who asked not to be 
named. 
Of all interview subjects, in addition to the four consortium leaders, 10 are staff members of the 
consortium organizations administering various ARM programs; 9 are recipients of ARM grants, and 5 
are Infotun partners or staff members. Also consulted was the USAID project management specialist 
who works with ARM. Representatives of two organizations that collaborate with ARM advocacy and 
freedom-of-expression projects and four teachers attending an ARM media literacy training session were 
additionally contacted. The remaining seven subjects are journalists, journalism educators, or persons 
involved in civil society organizations. In response to KQ 1, we also considered various published 
reports from international media monitoring programs such as the Media Sustainability Index (IREX), the 
World Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders), and Nations in Transit (Freedom House). 
Given the short amount of time allotted for this evaluation, data gleaned from interviewees is subject to 
some degree of selection bias. To mitigate this bias, as previously stated, the evaluation team made 
every attempt to collect data from subjects representative of the media landscape as a whole. This was 
done in consultation with USAID staff and through thorough review of project reports and other 
documents. 
ARM's goal, broadly stated, is changing the consciousness of the Armenian public. By definition, this is 
not subject to exact measurement. Nor is it possible to isolate the effects of a particular program from 
16
those of broader changes in the media world and the public life of Armenian society. Thus the available 
quantitative data, such as numbers of people receiving training, or the count of visitors to ARM￾supported online media sites, cannot constitute a comprehensive measurement of ARM's mid-term 
results. While it is possible to identify particular news stories initiated by ARM-supported projects that 
have led to citizen action challenging government decisions, such examples only serve to illustrate, 
rather than quantify, a much broader trend in the public life of the country. 
A further limitation is that ARM's activities are too numerous and varied for an evaluation to 
independently examine more than a limited number of activities in the time available. The evaluation 
team’s findings and conclusions are thus necessarily based on examples, rather than the full range of 
activities -- e.g., visits to two of the five regional information centers and interviews with eight of 33 
grant recipients. 
17
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & 
RECOMMENDATIONS
KEY QUESTION #1 
How relevant has the ARM project intervention been to the media field challenges in Armenia?
FINDINGS 
An appraisal of ARM's relevance must take into consideration the state of Armenian media and the 
challenges to creating more independent media that will better serve citizens and the democratic 
process. As noted above in the Project Background section, Armenia's public and private television 
channels, which have traditionally been the overwhelmingly dominant source of news, were reported by 
respondents to be generally seen as providing government-approved reports instead of independent 
journalism. (Journalists on Armenian television "are not journalists," one respected reporter told us, but 
"part of a team" serving political interests and their allies in the business community.) It was reported 
that print media are freer, but have few readers and little influence. 
The state of trust in media at the outset of the ARM program was documented in the "Armenia Media 
Landscape" survey conducted for ARM by the Caucasus Research Resource Centers in early 2011. Just 
five percent of survey respondents declared that they "fully trust" Armenian news media, while 43 
percent said they trusted "somewhat" in the news they receive. On the other side, 30 percent 
"somewhat distrusted" media, and 18 percent said they "don't trust at all." The split was thus exactly 
even, with 48 percent trusting media at least partially and the identical percentage distrusting partially or 
entirely.
Meanwhile, use of computers and the Internet has spread dramatically from middle-class urban youth to 
a much wider cross-section of the Armenian population. When teachers attending an ARM media 
literacy training session in the city of Vanadzor were asked how many of their students had computers 
at home, estimates ranged from 30 to 50 percent -- even in schools with sizable numbers of students 
from disadvantaged backgrounds. When asked how many students' homes might have had computers as 
recently as two years ago, the teachers guessed it would have been fewer than 10 percent. 
ARM's activities -- described in more detail in our response to KQ 2 -- intersect with these trends in 
many ways and many places and across a very wide spectrum of Armenian society. Manana Aslamazyan, 
chief of party, says ARM was developed "at the right time in the right place." Its regional information 
centers (known as Infotuns, or "info-houses") offer computer literacy training and online interaction 
opportunities to residents of all ages in five regional towns. ARM has conducted multiple training 
programs for professional journalists, "citizen contributors," bloggers, social media users, etc., while 
awarding grants to individuals and organizations for a wide range of projects aimed at widening the 
audience for alternative information and giving citizens a platform to make their voices heard on
community and policy issues. The ARM project also assists traditional news organizations navigate the 
18
transition to multimedia coverage, and has developed a proposed media literacy curriculum for use in 
Armenian schools. 
In another significant activity, ARM supported the project known as "i-Ditord" ("i-Observer"), using 
alternative media resources to help journalists, election observers and voters monitor and report 
abuses or irregularities in the May 2012 parliamentary election. In cooperation with two other civil 
society organizations, Counterpart International-Armenia and Open Society Foundation-Armenia, ARM 
assisted in training some 500 monitors and citizens on election procedures and how to report 
questionable incidents (with photos or videos, if available) via mobile phones or other devices to the i￾Ditord.org website. By ARM's post-election compilation, nearly 900 verified reports were received 
during the pre-election period and on election day. Among regular viewers of the complaints were 
election monitoring bodies and the Armenian police. The site is expected to be activated for the coming 
presidential election as well. 
Across the entire span of its projects, ARM estimates its activities have potentially reached over 200,000 
people, about seven percent of the total Armenian population. Preliminary calculations for the program's 
first two years estimate that its awareness campaigns -- including nearly 100 TV and radio broadcasts --
had a potential audience of up to 235,000 Armenians. The number who gained improved access to 
alternative information sources is estimated at 205,000, including visitors to ARM or its grantees' 
websites, people who had contact with the regional Infotuns, participants in training sessions, and 
viewers of "E-club," a series of weekly online TV broadcasts that presents discussions of online 
technologies and news and features on Armenia's blogosphere. Altogether, ARM assistance has reached 
approximately 80 non-state news outlets across the country. An estimated 62 active blogs are operated 
by ARM trainees.
Snapshots of two ARM-supported websites and what readers could find on them during a typical week 
give a sense of the variety of material generated by ARM projects and its relevance to audience 
members' lives. MyNews.am was created for citizen reporters and also for professional journalists who 
are working in traditional media but cooperate with citizen contributors. Through various special 
projects and competitions, MyNews seeks to help passive readers become active content creators. 
Contributors can submit text, photos, video or multimedia products. Postings are not grouped by 
subject or limited to particular issues or themes; they can be on any topic someone wanted to write 
about. Media.am is a platform for news about media and media-related issues. Most contributors are 
professional journalists, but outside commentators also contribute. 
CONCLUSIONS
The sharp increase in computer and Internet use means that ARM-supported online material is available 
and thus potentially relevant not only to more people but also to an audience that is more 
representative of the population. As the preceding summary shows, ARM's activities in expanding the 
reach and use of alternative information resources have been numerous, creative and wide-ranging. 
Those activities have helped train and organize a growing community of reporters and activists using 
new media technology to meet a wide variety of needs, including a more transparent and legitimate 
election process. The projects reviewed, findings on the media landscape, and the information and 
judgments received from informants within and outside ARM structures all indicate that ARM's efforts 
have been and continue to be highly relevant to the rapidly changing media environment in Armenia. 
19
KEY QUESTION #2 
To what extent has the project contributed to creating opportunities for (a) a diversity of 
alternative sources of information and opinion, (b) increased access to alternative sources of 
information and opinion, and (c) advocacy for improved enabling environment for media 
independence?
FINDINGS 
As noted above, the activities undertaken by this program are numerous and diverse. Findings are 
presented below in two sections: the first focused on topics (a) and (b) of this question (developing 
alternative sources and increasing access and use), and the second focused on topic (c) (activities that 
center on monitoring, advocating for media freedom, and improving ethical and professional standards). 
FINDINGS (1): Activities aimed at developing more diverse alternative information sources and greater 
access to them. Activities in this area include:
• Establishment of Infotuns ("information houses) in five regional towns, housed in and operated in 
cooperation with local NGOs. The Infotuns' purposes are (1) to widen the audience for 
alternative news sources, (2) increase public demand for information and independent reporting 
on issues of local and national concern, and (3) help citizens use new media to contribute to 
public discussion by creating and disseminating their own reports on pertinent issues and events. 
Through the Infotuns, in ARM's first two years of operation, 2,800 citizens received training in 
new media tools, basic computer skills, and citizen reporting.
• Multiple training programs for professional journalists, citizen contributors, bloggers, social 
media users, etc. Training covers both technical skills and journalistic skills and principles. Of 
1,280 people who have participated in these training sessions, ARM estimates about half are 
media professionals and half are citizen contributors. 
• Grants to individuals and organizations for a wide range of projects aimed at increasing public 
knowledge of new media, expanding the audience for alternative information, and giving citizens 
a platform to make their voices heard on community and policy issues. In the two-year period 
under review, ARM awarded 33 grants through a competitive application process (five of these 
were continuations of previous grants). Another three grants were for recipients who were 
invited to apply. Two of the invited grants went to established news outlets, the daily newspaper 
Aravot and the online investigative newspaper Hetq.am, and are intended to help them navigate 
the transition from text-only to multimedia news coverage. The third supported the i-Ditord 
election monitoring project, described under Question 1 above, which developed tools and 
trained journalists, election observers, and citizens to monitor the May 2012 parliamentary 
election. A feature of several of these grant projects (examples include lragir.am; the 
Taghinfo.am "hyperlocal" news site, directed by Gayane Mirzoyan; and MyNews.am, directed by 
Seda Muradyan) is collaboration between citizen contributors and trained professional 
journalists, who oversee contributions and seek to promote professional standards of accuracy, 
fairness, and verification of facts. 
20
• A variety of public events, including televised discussions and debates, town meetings, 
exhibitions, and technology festivals, aimed at raising awareness of new information sources and 
bringing users together to share experiences and ideas.
As alternative sources become stronger and reach a wider audience, government authorities and 
traditional media have less ability to control or manipulate the news. When people are informed about 
events and situations from alternative media, traditional media are far less able to shut those subjects 
out of their own coverage. As ARM grantee Seda Muradyan told us, "it is much more difficult for them 
to filter information" when that information is already widely known. Anna Israelyan, the online editor 
for Aravot, pointed out that even while Armenia's TV channels remain subject to direct and indirect 
political pressure, the new media environment makes them report more openly because "if they don't 
cover stuff that's on the Internet, people will not watch them." Informants generally reported that 
Armenian TV coverage of this year’s parliamentary election was far more balanced and gave much fairer 
coverage to opposition candidates and views than in the 2008 election. The change in the media 
environment was not the only reason; many believe the improved coverage reflected the authorities' 
decision to satisfy OSCE standards for a fair, democratic election. 
Another multiplier is that content generated or disseminated by ARM-supported projects is widely 
picked up by other online and traditional media outlets. In a typical month this year, for example, of 165 
reports posted on Seda Muradyan's MyNews.am site, 52 were republished by other media. Similarly, 
Inga Zarafyan of the environmental NGO Ecolur (see below under Question 3) and the editors of 
Lragir.am, both ARM grant recipients, reported that citizen contributions posted on their sites have 
generated significant coverage in other media, thus letting contributors' voices be heard by a larger 
audience. 
FINDINGS (2): Activities centered on monitoring, advocating for media freedom, and improving ethical 
and professional standards.
The background of ARM's advocacy programs includes a 2010 change in Armenian law that 
decriminalized libel and defamation. Originally, this was hailed as a positive step toward greater media 
freedom. But the change led to a sudden spike in civil lawsuits and a series of judicial decisions imposing 
disastrously punitive damage awards -- a trend that reformers charged made the media climate more 
repressive, not less. In cooperation with the national ombudsman's office, The Media Advocacy Group 
(MAG), an ARM initiative, played an instrumental role in obtaining rulings from the Court of Cassation, 
Armenia's highest appeals court, and an interpretive ruling from the Constitutional Court that sharply 
limited damage awards. The constitutional ruling did not declare that fines for defamation are 
unconstitutional, but found that media outlets cannot be held liable for “statements of fact” and “value
judgments.” The court suggested non-financial compensation, such as an apology, as an alternative to 
monetary damages.2 The decisions -- which set binding standards for trial courts -- effectively ended the 
practice of excessive damage awards, and gave a major boost to the movement toward self-regulation 
through the Media Ethics Observatory, as reported by respondents. 
After participating in a working group established by the ombudsman's office to draft a reform proposal, 
two of ARM's consortium members (Internews Armenia and the Yerevan Press Club) and the 
Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression concluded the working group draft was inadequate. 
2 See Freedom House, "Armenia: Freedom of the Press 2012," at http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom￾press/freedom-press-2012. 
21
 
Working on their own, the two groups drafted an alternative proposal and presented it to the Armenian 
parliament. Their draft has not been voted on, but is now the only one before the parliament and thus 
will be the basis for action when legislators take up the issue. 
Specific advocacy and monitoring activities include:
• Creation of the Media Advocacy Group (MAG), with a membership drawn from a number of
organizations active in media and civil society spheres along with Armenian government 
organizations such as the National Commission on TV and Radio. MAG has given a unified voice 
to media members and advocates on issues such as excessive damage awards in defamation and 
libel cases and reform of the national broadcast laws. 
• Support for dealing with defamation complaints through a self-regulatory council, the Media 
Ethics Observatory (MEO), rather than the legal system. The MEO, modeled on the Press 
Councils that operate in many countries in Europe and elsewhere, was initiated by the Yerevan 
Press Club in 2007, before the ARM project began. Its activities have significantly increased 
during the period of ARM support, largely as a result of the successful movement to limit 
punitive damage awards handed down by Armenian courts. ARM's support has helped the MEO 
become much more visible and active. Together with the Council of Europe, ARM funded a 
series of 10 television programs focusing on media ethics and self-regulation issues, helping 
publicize MEO as an alternative to legal action. In addition, ARM organized a variety of 
community meetings and discussions on media issues and self-regulation. ARM's involvement 
helped spark a significant increase in its caseload, from four or five cases a year to 12 or 15 in 
2012, according to Irene Aloyan, a media lawyer who coordinates dispute resolution activities 
for the Press Club. (If the TV discussions were to continue for a full season, Aloyan added, she 
believes the caseload would double again.) Meanwhile, the number of news organizations that 
have accepted MEO's Code of Conduct and agreed to be bound by its decisions has risen to 48. 
That pattern has occurred similarly with other activities of all three consortium partners.
• Creating a "media literacy" course for submission to the Ministry of Education as a proposed 
addition to the national secondary school curriculum. In addition to drafting the curriculum, 
ARM has presented it to teachers in training sessions in Yerevan, Vanadzor and Goris. 
• Ongoing review and analysis in various forums monitoring Armenian journalism and its role in 
informing and educating the public. These monitoring projects drew interest far beyond the 
media world. As an example, ARM reports the Media.AM website, which posts reports on 
media-related events and issues, drew 121,000 visitors in its first 1-1/2 years of operation --
many of them, it is probable, from outside the media professional world that is the site's 
intended audience. 
CONCLUSIONS
On parts (a) and (b) of this question, a review of ARM's activities leads to the conclusion that they have 
cumulatively made a significant contribution to developing alternative media sources, promoting the 
creation of alternative content, and expanding citizens' access to new information from new and diverse 
outlets. It can be assumed that sources and access would have expanded without ARM, given the rapid 
and revolutionary changes in media technology. But these findings indicate that ARM has helped shape 
the effects of those changes and has actively assisted a large number of people to become more 
informed and active through new media in the public life of their communities and the country. As noted 
22
in the findings, the impact of these contributions is multiplied because the content generated in 
alternative media makes coverage in conventional media more open and more responsive to public 
needs. Also of note is that in its training programs and designing grant projects in which trained 
journalists monitor and guide amateur contributors, ARM has also demonstrated an awareness of the 
need to promote professional standards and values among citizen reporters, so their work will 
command public trust and make citizens' voices more effective in public discussion. ARM has recognized
the need for citizen reporters to be trained and develop their understanding of professional skills and 
values. 
On part (c), relating to media monitoring and advocacy, ARM and its collaborators have contributed to 
concrete advances in the areas of self-regulation and efforts to reform the broadcasting law. The impact 
of ARM's broader efforts to monitor media and promote public knowledge and discussion of media 
issues is impossible to measure with any precision, but the audience for its programs indicates that there 
is keen public demand for the material and knowledge ARM is providing on these subjects. ARM￾supported media advocates are currently in the process of finalizing their draft; thus, it is premature to 
determine success in this area. As well as making alternative information available, ARM has recognized, 
it is just as important to help citizens become informed consumers of that information, so they can use 
it to exercise their rights as active citizens instead of being manipulated or controlled by others.
23
KEY QUESTION #3 
What has the project done or mechanisms has it created to ensure that the project products 
will be sustained?
FINDINGS 
Most of ARM’s projects are integrated in existing structures that were well established and active before 
the ARM program began and are expected to continue after ARM ends. In some cases, the sustaining 
organization will be one of the three consortium members. In others, it will be one of the many groups 
ARM has partnered with to carry out different parts of the program. For example, the five regional 
information centers, called Infotuns, are all housed in and operated under the auspices of local NGOs 
that are long established in their cities and regions. As a result, instead of being established as new, 
unattached facilities identified only with a time-limited aid project, the Infotuns are operated as part of 
an ongoing enterprise. The Infotuns thus start out in touch with a population that is already connected 
to the host NGOs, while Infotun activities -- teaching computer skills, promoting awareness of new 
media and citizen reporting, etc. -- add an information component to services those NGOs are already 
providing, as well as meeting ARM's goals of a more informed, media-literate society. Similarly, many 
other ARM activities are carried out in cooperation with organizations that can be expected to remain 
in operation after ARM is terminated.
From many possible examples, there are two cases that best illustrate the link between ARM's 
partnerships with other organizations and the potential sustainability of its projects:
The Infotun for the Gegharkunik region is one of two Infotuns visited by the evaluation team. The 
Infotun is located in the office of the Martuni Women's Community Council, which has been in 
operation for 12 years, is led by a well-known and well-connected long-time local activist, and has a 
network of four branch offices and long-standing relationships with a wide range of Armenian and 
international organizations. The Infotun occupies a spacious room in the council's newly renovated 
headquarters, with new desks and chairs, five new computers and a printer/fax/copying machine. (The 
equipment was donated by the Orange Foundation.) The ARM-trained staff not only conducts classes 
for local residents in the center, but also fans out across the region to bring training to people in their 
villages and even in the high pastures where farmers spend the summers with their cows and sheep. A 
popular training topic is the use of Skype, which helps people stay in touch with family members working 
in Russia and other countries. NGO and Infotun staff members have also created a network of 12
citizen contributors in different towns, who have publicized issues such as the need for a new electricity 
substation in one district, opposition to a proposed increase in bus fares, and protests against a planned 
hydroelectric plant that opponents feared would disrupt local farming. 
Another example showing the same pattern is ARM's support for Ecolur, an NGO that focuses on 
environmental issues, particularly the situation in 40-plus "hot spots", or zones that have suffered 
particularly severe ecological damage. Ecolur, which has been active since 2006, is regarded as one of 
Armenia's most active environmentalist groups. ARM's grant supported multimedia training for activists 
in eight localities, teaching them how to publicize local issues through blogs, social media, and other new 
information channels. Material originated by those contributors generated extensive news coverage in 
traditional media and helped mobilize public action on a variety of environmental threats from mining, 
hydropower, and other projects. In this case, ARM's grant to Ecolur has terminated, but it continues to 
produce and distribute information and promote public demands for more transparent procedures and 
24
environmentally responsible decisions by government regulatory agencies. Thus, the goals of ARM's 
support will continue to be met. 
Both of these partner organizations – the Martuni Women’s Council and Ecolur – have other donors. 
Those donors will be familiar with their activities, including activities supported by ARM, and therefore if 
new funding is required to sustain ARM-initiated projects, those partners will be in a much stronger 
position to get the needed support because of their existing donor relationships. The same is true of 
many of ARM's other collaborators.
A third project that illustrates how sustainability is built into the design of ARM's projects is the Media 
Ethics Observatory (MEO), described under KQ 2 above. In this case, the project is implemented by a 
consortium member, the Yerevan Press Club, and as with the two examples presented above, is planned 
to continue after the ARM program ends.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the aforementioned findings, ARM has a clear strategy in place for preparing projects that are 
realistically sustainable after the ARM grant expires. Cooperation with ongoing organizations is not the 
only criterion for assessing potential sustainability, but it is logical to conclude that a project 
implemented within a continuing structure has a better prospect of being sustainable than a stand-alone 
project whose structure will disappear or will have to be reinvented when ARM terminates. 
Among ARM's many projects, some are clearly temporary activities that were never intended to be 
permanent, and it is not possible to make any overall assessment of sustainability while program 
activities are continuing. However, ARM has designed many important projects in ways that maximize 
the chance of sustainability, and there are strong reasons to believe that a great deal of the work ARM 
has initiated will continue to produce valuable results in the future. For example, with the Martuni 
Women’s Council, some adjustments may be necessary, i.e. staffing, after the ARM program ends; 
however, because the Women’s Council will remain, as will the computers and the presence of the 
training recipients, the Infotun will continue to serve the purposes for which it was established. ARM 
support has already ended for Ecolur, yet the sustainability of the project is already in evidence.
25
KEY QUESTION #4 
What have been the added value and/or drawbacks of the project management structure 
(consortium of three local organizations with an unaffiliated Chief of Party)?
FINDINGS 
While ARM's leadership operates as a consortium and commonly uses that term to describe itself, the 
leadership structure is not formally a consortium. As explained by USAID's project manager for ARM in 
Yerevan, the recipient of the grant is the international U.S.-based organization Internews (referred to in 
this document as Internews-U.S.), rather than the three Armenian partners (Internews Armenia, Eurasia 
Partnership Foundation, and the Yerevan Press Club). In practice, however, the Armenian partners have 
functioned more like members of a consortium than like sub-grantees (e.g., they were the principal 
designers of the project proposal, although the proposal was formally submitted by Internews-U.S.). 
Manana Aslamazyan, the Chief of Party, and the heads of the three consortium members all reported 
that the advantages of ARM's management structure have far outweighed the disadvantages. A principal 
reason is that each of the three partner organizations came to the program with years of experience 
and highly knowledgeable staffs in different but complementary areas: Eurasia Partnership in grant 
administration, Internews Armenia in training and media production, and the Yerevan Press Club in 
activism and advocacy on ethical and legal issues. Additionally, they were unanimous in stating that the 
personalities involved were also a key factor. Leaders of the partner organizations have known each 
other for many years, have cooperated in many ways in the past, share common values and goals, and 
have strong mutual respect and trust. For all those reasons, they report that they have been able to 
resolve different views without damaging their relations, and have carried out their parts of the project 
without competing for resources. 
One partner's view of the arrangement is expressed in an e-mail to the evaluators from Boris 
Navasardyan, president of the Yerevan Press Club: “In the case of the three local partners the 
management structure was very efficient, since they share the values, approaches, they do not differ 
much in terms of capacity and influence, they also have long history of fruitful cooperation, thus, it is 
very common for them to discuss things and come up with a collective decision." Navasardyan added 
that having Internews Network as the external lead organization has been helpful in establishing an 
"efficient division of tasks and fair cooperation" among the Armenian partners. All three, he explained, 
"through their 15 years and more operational history have proved each to be quite strong in many 
components of media development – advocacy, training, production, research, etc., and each might claim 
that is able to implement almost all components of the ARM project itself. Thus, Internews Network 
and its representative as CoP helps to identify the stronger sides of the partners and finds best 
implementers (or their combination) for each project component or sub-component, ensuring synergy 
effect of various efforts." 
The three organization heads and all others asked gave Manana Aslamazyan the highest possible marks 
for her leadership – dedicated, charismatic, with an extraordinary depth of experience in all realms of 
media assistance, and able to draw on a very wide network of people she has worked with over her 
many years in the field. 
The decentralization of the program, along with its wide range of activities, occluded a larger 
understanding of consortium structure for some informants. However, informants did not provide any 
significant criticism about their own relations with ARM's managers or general management style (the 
26
only adverse comment came from one grant recipient, whose project has been approved but not yet 
implemented, felt that ARM was being unduly slow in releasing the designated funds). 
An additional significant benefit of the consortium structure reported by respondents was that joint 
efforts and financial and organizational support from ARM help strengthen capacities of the three 
consortium partners, making their ongoing activities more effective. An illustrative example is the Media 
Ethics Observatory (MEO), a project originally undertaken by the Yerevan Press Club. The MEO is the 
centerpiece of the effort to handle defamation and privacy cases and other disputes over media 
practices through a voluntary self-regulation process instead of through the legal system. 
ARM's management was also found to have been capable of changing course when circumstances proved 
beneficial. An example was the decision not to proceed with a proposed new printing plant for regional 
newspapers, as was envisaged in the original program description but reconsidered in light of a 
continued decline in newspaper readership. Another example was a turn to give less attention to blogs 
and more to social media, which have increasingly become a more important platform for discussion of 
public issues. 
CONCLUSIONS
ARM's collegial decision-making process at times takes more effort and is slower than it would be if 
there were a single organization involved. However, that effect is far outweighed by the many 
advantages of the consortium structure. Those benefits include: the experience and expertise each 
partner has in complementary areas of activity; the strengthened capacity all three will gain from ARM's 
resources and organizational support; and the greatly improved sustainability that comes from working 
with organizations that were strong and well-established before ARM and will remain strong and well￾established after ARM concludes. Those considerations, plus the experience and attitudes of the 
personalities involved, demonstrate that ARM's management structure has significantly helped make its 
many activities more creative and effective. ARM’s management has effectively shown its ability to 
remain flexible and adapt to changing needs, circumstances, and ideas. 
27
KEY QUESTION #5 
How successful has the project been in leveraging resources of (a) the skills and organizational
strengths of the consortium members, and (b) private and other donor partnerships?
FINDINGS 
Within the consortium, a good example of leveraging resources was found to be the Media Ethics 
Observatory, described above, which draws on the Yerevan Press Club's depth of experience in 
promoting free expression and ethical and professional standards in Armenian media. Another example 
is management of ARM's grant program by a different consortium partner, Eurasia Partnership 
Foundation. EPF administers ARM grants with a background of having conducted a grant program in 
Armenia for many years, supporting a wide range of civil society and NGO activities. The expertise it 
has developed in that area was found to have greatly benefitted ARM's operations. Similarly, Internews 
Armenia’s expertise in training, one of its principal activities for much of the last two decades, was cited 
as a highly important asset for ARM's programs. 
As to leveraging resources from organizations outside the consortium, ARM-supported activities are 
conducted in cooperation with numerous other groups, such as the 20 members of the Media Advocacy 
Group (MAG) that was formed at ARM's initiative and coordinated by the Yerevan Press Club in the 
media advocacy area, for instance. The members represent journalistic associations, traditional and new 
media outlets, civil society organizations, and Armenian government agencies. Similarly, ARM 
participates with other media advocates in the Information Dispute Council, which advises complainants 
on self-regulation possibilities, and in the movement to revise the broadcasting law. This coalition￾building approach brings together industry representatives, legal specialists, media professionals, and 
advocates of media reform. 
Similar leverage of partners' skills and resources was seen to occur in other ARM programs beside those 
discussed above. The i-Ditord election monitoring project, supported by ARM jointly with the Armenian 
affiliates of Counterpart International and the Open Society Foundation, is one example. The linkage of 
the five Infotuns to existing NGOs with proven viability, also described earlier, is another. 
With respect to finding additional donor support, Chief of Party Manana Aslamazyan reported that ARM 
so far has obtained approximately 250,000 USD from non-U.S. government international sources, 
putting it on track to meet USAID's requirement of 400,000 USD in co-funding over the four-year life of 
the program. ARM has also received modest financial support from Armenian donors, such as the 
Orange Foundation's donation to the Martuni Infotun and funding from other Armenian telecom firms 
for a BarCamp, where participants exchange ideas and get expert guidance on topics such as blogging, 
social media, web and application design, etc. 
CONCLUSIONS
Both ARM's structure and its project design approach were found to have effectively made use of the 
skills and strengths of collaborating organizations – the consortium partners themselves, and a wide 
range of other groups that have cooperated with various ARM projects. Their combined knowledge and 
resources strengthen the broader effort to expand media freedom, raise professional standards, and 
improve public knowledge. These findings indicate that ARM has had considerable success in leveraging 
skills and resources both from its consortium member organizations and from many other groups it has 
collaborated with to implement its projects. 
28
ARM has been creative and imaginative in finding ways to contribute to revolutionary changes in the 
Armenian information landscape. Meanwhile, through its monitoring and advocacy activities, it has also 
found ways to support traditional principles and values that need to be preserved in the new media 
environment -- recognizing that if alternative media do not observe standards of honesty, independence, 
and respect for fact, they risk losing public trust and becoming discredited in the same way that 
traditional Armenian media have. ARM's organizational structure and its approach to designing its 
profusion of activities have also maximized the chance that the projects it supports will be able to 
remain active and effective after ARM support ends. Additionally, in collaborating with many other 
organizations and individuals to carry out those projects, ARM has both benefited from its partners' 
contacts, experience and expertise, and in turn, has given those partners significant new ideas and 
experience and improved capacity for future efforts. 
GENDER 
ARM's senior leadership reflects an equal division in gender, with two females (Chief of Party and the 
director of Internews Armenia) and two males (president of the Yerevan Press Club and country 
director of Eurasia Partnership Foundation). At the staff level, of the six people we met who manage 
specific ARM programs for one or another of the consortium partners, four were women and two were 
men. At the two Infotun centers we visited (Martuni and Vanadzor), one Infotun coordinator was male 
and one female; the heads of both host NGOs were women. 
As to beneficiaries, a large majority of participants in ARM's training programs have been women. In the 
first year, according to the Year One summary of results, women made up 75 percent of those receiving 
training from Internews Armenia and 70 percent of those trained under the Infotun program. A similar 
gender breakdown for training programs in the second year was unavailable to the evaluation team 
during their fieldwork; however, those proportions are not expected to have changed significantly. In 
ARM's grant programs, individual awards went to roughly equal numbers of men and women. While 
there is no way to precisely identify recipients of organizational grants by gender, it can be reasonably 
assumed that ARM's grants in that sector benefited a significant proportion of women, since women are 
generally well represented in the NGO sector.
Finally, it is speculated that ARM may help reduce the gender imbalance among younger journalists, 
where women vastly outnumber men. (An example is that of approximately 150 students in the 
journalism faculty at the Yerevan State Linguistic University, only four are men.) Computer technology, 
on the other hand, is traditionally of greater interest to men, so it may be possible that the new-media 
technology taught in ARM's training could draw more men into the world of information producers. In 
at least one reporting period, the gender balance in ARM training courses on blogging was much more 
even, with men still in the minority, but by a much narrower margin.
29
RECOMMENDATIONS
ARM is a whole made up of many, many parts. The second half of the program should look for ways to 
be more selective, giving more focus and resources to activities that are most relevant and effective. 
Those considered high-priority category include: 
• Infotuns, which informants unanimously described as exceptionally successful in extending the 
reach of new media to a wide range of citizens in Armenia's regions. Without suggesting a 
specific target, expansion of this program should be a priority. To the extent that resources 
permit and effective partnerships can be established, the launch of new centers in other regions 
beyond the five presently served is highly recommended. 
• Using new media tools to promote democratic processes and principles in the February 2013 
presidential election. Alternative information sources can play a huge role in informing citizens 
about issues, candidates, interest groups, and proper election process. They can also greatly 
assist journalists, monitors, and voters to observe and to report and correct irregularities in 
campaigning, balloting, and vote counting. ARM is strongly urged to look for all possible ways to 
cooperate with other election-monitoring organizations and use its knowledge and experience 
in new media and the platforms it has created in projects relating to voter education and 
ensuring freedom and fairness in the election process.
• Media literacy. This is a crucial element – unless people learn to be knowledgeable and critical 
consumers of information, promoting alternative information sources will not reach the broader 
goals of empowering citizens and strengthening democracy. ARM is urged to find ways to be 
even more creative and proactive in educating the Armenian public about the new media 
environment and how to understand and use the new knowledge that it makes available. In 
connection with the proposed media literacy curriculum for schools, one specific idea to 
explore would be a system of modest incentives for teachers trying out the new course in the 
experimental phase. A possible model reported by respondents comes from Doctors Without 
Borders, which paid a small stipend to teachers who participated in a pilot program teaching 
that organization's proposed course on healthy lifestyle and living. In that connection, it was also 
reported that some of the teachers in the training session attended by the evaluation team 
expressed a wish for more technical material to be covered in the training. This would be 
relatively easy to implement, and it is recommended that ARM adjust its training agenda 
accordingly. It is also recommended that the training-of-trainers component in this particular 
program be strengthened, so teachers receiving ARM's training on the media literacy curriculum 
can then pass on their knowledge to other colleagues.
• Assistance to traditional media for the transition to multimedia news coverage. ARM has given 
grants to help two news organizations develop multimedia capability. Other news organizations 
could benefit from this support, and ARM is urged to consider making additional grants in this 
area. 
• Related to the previous recommendation, reshaping for the new media age is necessary not only 
in newsrooms but in the industry as a whole, which must adapt to an entirely new and still 
largely undefined market model. Therefore, it is recommended that ARM begin a discussion with 
media managers (editorial and business), advertisers and ad agencies, rating companies, and 
other relevant stakeholders, to begin collecting data and ideas on how that process may unfold 
30
and what news organizations need to do to be sustainable in the changed media environment. A 
better grasp of the present situation and existing and future challenges will lay the groundwork 
for designing future programs to assist the transition to new and more viable market structures 
that can preserve the principles and practices of professional journalism in the new media world. 
• With respect to "citizen reporting," ARM is strongly urged to continue and strengthen efforts to 
team citizen contributors with trained professional journalists, so that the accuracy and fairness 
of citizen reporting will reach the best possible standard and earn and keep the trust of its 
audience.
• In giving higher priority to the areas listed above, ARM should consider whether resources for 
an array of awareness-raising activities ought to be kept at the same level as in the first two 
years. The need for promoting awareness may be less now than when ARM began; therefore, 
ARM managers should reexamine that category of projects and determine whether some 
resources can be reallocated to other activities. 
• For the remaining term of ARM's program, ARM should consider offering more extended in￾depth training, particularly when the focus is on reporting skills rather than technology. The 
program should also look for ways to extend training to a wider range of participants, including 
media managers and professionals in related fields. Teaching journalistic principles and skills 
should be recognized as an element in all activities promoting content by “citizen contributors”. 
The more citizen reporters and their work can be trusted to meet standards of accuracy, 
balance, independence, and ethical conduct, the more effectively they will help meet the goal of 
creating a more educated and empowered public. 
• Looking ahead, ARM should develop strategies and educate its constituents and its audience in 
advance of Armenia's scheduled shift to digital TV, which is planned to take place in the period 
immediately following the end of the current ARM program. There is concern in the media 
advocacy community that some independent broadcast voices may be endangered in that 
transition.3 In view of that concern, ARM should put appropriate resources into monitoring the 
preparations for digitalization, promoting an open process that will protect free expression in 
broadcast media, and informing and mobilizing citizens about the process and the importance of 
the issues it raises. 
• Looking ahead, USAID/Armenia is urged strategize ways of approaching new challenges to 
continue the valuable work that ARM has started. The evolving media environment will continue 
to pose existing challenges and new ones -- for example, the coming shift to digital TV. Thus, 
there will be a continuing need for development of information resources and for citizen 
education on new information platforms and on ways to participate in public discussion, as well 
as a continuing need to protect media freedoms and open discussion of public concerns from a 
diversity of voices and viewpoints. 
3 See Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression task group report, "Transition Process to Digital, TV and Radio 
Broadcasting in Armenia," Dec. 2010. 
31
 
ANNEXES
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
ANNEX III: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 
ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
ANNEX V: SUMMARY NOTES FROM INTERVIEWS
ANNEX VI: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 
32
ANNEX I: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
Statement of Work
Evaluation of USAID/Armenia Health Systems Strengthening Project, Civil Society and 
Local Government Support Program, Alternative Resources in Media Project, Assistance 
to the Energy Sector to Support Energy Security and Regional Integration Program, 
Pension and Labor Market Reform Project 
Summary: 
USAID/Armenia requires performance evaluations of the following activities: Health Systems 
Strengthening Project (HS-STAR), Civil Society and Local Government Support Program (CSLGSP), 
Alternative Resources in Media Project (ARM), Assistance to the Energy Sector to Support Energy 
Security and Regional Integration Program (ESRI), and Pension and Labor Market Reform Project 
(PALM). The purposes of this Task Order are to evaluate the success of these projects in their relevant 
technical areas and to assess the overall effectiveness of the projects in achieving set programmatic goals 
and USAID/Armenia’s strategic objectives. Three of the five planned evaluations are designed as mid￾term performance evaluations (HS-STAR, CSLGSP, and ARM), while the remaining two are designed as 
end-of-project performance evaluations (ESRI and PALM). The purposes of the mid-term evaluations are 
to inform USAID’s determination on whether the set programmatic goals and targets are being 
achieved, and whether the initial designs of the projects are still valid in leading to the achievement of 
the original objectives. Findings from the mid-term evaluations must inform future work plans of the 
relevant projects, as well as designs of future similar activities. The purpose of the end-of-project 
evaluations is to assess the effectiveness of resources spent and to inform design and development of 
future strategies and projects. The evaluation findings must be used primarily by USAID/Armenia, the 
respective implementing partners, and by interested government entities where applicable. The 
respective project AORs/CORs will develop plans for incorporation of relevant recommendations from 
the evaluations in their future work plans.
Contractor Responsibilities and Projects:
The evaluations should measure and analyze the accomplishments or the progress toward achievement 
of the results of the activities, guided by the evaluation questions formulated for each individual activity. 
Each evaluation question must be answered empirically, relying on factual evidence, and 
must be addressed distinctly in the final reports. 
HS-STAR 
Jan 2011-Jan 2014, $9.6m
This is a three-year activity in the second year of its implementation. The project aims to address key 
constraints in health financing, leadership and governance, human resources, and information systems 
that impede access to and delivery of quality health services. The project relies on an approach that 
simultaneously aims to strengthen the health system while improving the quality of care and increasing 
population knowledge in priority service areas, including maternal and child health, reproductive health 
and family planning, tuberculosis, non-communicable diseases and emergency medicine. HS-STAR aims 
to significantly enhance local capacity to design, implement and monitor reform interventions to foster 
sustainability. To this end, HS-STAR provides technical assistance to the Armenian government through 
program components of health financing and governance, quality improvement (including MCH, TB, 
RH/FP), and the adoption of proactive health care seeking behaviors through civil society engagement.
33
CSLGSP 
Sep 2010-Sep 2014, $15.5m
This is a four-year activity in the second year of its implementation. The project aims to increase the 
level of informed and organized civic activism at the local and national levels, along with more 
participatory, decentralized, accountable governance that leads to a more democratic society. The 
project will reach this objective through three programmatic components: (1) local government and civil 
society collaboration, (2) fostering civic participation, advocacy and activism, and (3) facilitating 
decentralization and local fiscal autonomy. The project expands opportunities for the public to organize 
and advocate on behalf of their needs and concerns; it also increases local government accountability 
and capacity to be responsive to citizen interests. The program takes advantage of opportunities for 
reform at the local level by creating models of democratic governance through a highly integrated 
community development approach to local self-governance, fueled by increased civic participation from 
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and businesses.
ARM 
July 2010-June 2014, $4m.
ARM is a four-year activity in its second year of implementation. The project is aimed at (1) supporting 
the production and dissemination of alternative content though multiple high- and low-tech platforms; 
(2) building consumer demand for news and information at local and regional levels by promoting media 
literacy, critical analysis, and use of the latest and most useful web and mobile-based media applications 
and (3) encouraging timely, concerted public advocacy by NGOs, think tanks and citizens on specific key 
media-related issues. Alternative Resources in Media supports the diversification of media content, 
utilizing both high- and low-tech means to produce and distribute news and information. It assists 
citizens to transform themselves from passive users to active information producers in an otherwise 
controlled media environment. 
ESRI 
Sep 2009-Sep 2012, $5.9 million
The project provides expert services to the Government of Armenia to ensure (1) that the new 
Nuclear Unit meets western safety and environmental standards; (2) that Armenia develops the human 
and institutional capacity to plan and successfully implement the project; and (3) that the contribution of 
the project to Armenia’s economic growth and development is maximized. The project’s objectives also 
include improving the enabling environment for the development of renewable energy in Armenia, and 
supporting Armenia’s integration into regional energy systems and markets.
PALM
Oct 2009-Sep 2012, $5.4 million
PALM is USAID’s primary activity aimed to assist individuals, households, and communities to better 
manage social risks or needs, provide support to the vulnerable employed and jobless individuals 
(particularly the low-skilled, women, and the disabled), and give greater attention to countering the 
effects of the global economic crisis. The program is focused on (1) building institutional and human 
resource capacity to implement a multi-pillar pension system that will provide an adequate income for 
its elderly population in an environment that is fiscally sound and sustainable, with reformed current 
pay-as-you-go (PAYG) scheme and the newly created private retirement savings system; and (2) 
countering the effects of the economic downturn, through catalyzing new linkages at the local level 
between the private sector, local authorities, and vocational training institutions to address labor market 
gaps, and through improving the country’s workforce competitiveness. 
Evaluation Questions: 
34
The evaluation questions for mid-term evaluations are designed to help the projects adjust and/or 
modify future implementation and work plans, as well as designs of future similar projects. The questions 
for end-of project evaluations will help assess the effectiveness of the resources spent and will help 
inform the design of future projects and strategies. The contractor must review and summarize the data 
collected from document review and from field work to answer the following evaluation questions: 
HS-STAR
• To what extent is the project on track in achieving its expected results of a) establishing 
transparent and accountable health financing and governance; b) institutionalizing a system of 
continuous improvement of the quality of provided services; c) building the capacity of the 
national TB program; and d)enabling civil society to exercise their health rights and 
responsibilities?
• Are the project implementation approaches relevant to the current state of health reforms in 
Armenia?
• How did the implementer perform in terms of project management? 
o Were the project leadership and the management structure appropriate for its 
implementation?
• What internal and external factors slow down organization of procurement and training 
processes?
• Is there evidence that project interventions will be sustainable beyond the project lifetime?
CSLGSP
• How relevant was the Civil Society and Local Government Support project intervention to the 
current civil society and local governance situation in Armenia? 
• To what extent has the grants component contributed to the diversity of sustainable watchdog, 
advocacy and policy development mechanisms?
• To what extent has the program been successful in promoting decentralization?
• How effective is the project implementation? 
o Is the project management structure and staffing appropriate for the effective 
implementation of the project? 
o How successful has the project been in leveraging resources for Public-Private 
Partnerships in partner communities? 
o Are the project components on track for achieving results/benchmarks (Please use data 
from comparison and intervention communities to assess the achievements in citizen 
engagement in decision making and in community development projects)? 
• Do local governments/community councils, and citizens feel that the outcomes of the projects 
(greater citizen participation, new decision-making processes, etc.) serve their interests?
ARM
• How relevant has the ARM project intervention been to the media field challenges in Armenia?
• To what extent has the project contributed to creating opportunities for (a) a diversity of 
alternative sources of information and opinion, (b) increased access to alternative sources of 
information and opinion, and (c) advocacy for improved enabling environment for media 
independence? 
35
• What has the project done or mechanisms has it created to ensure that the project products 
will be sustained?
• What have been the added value and/or drawbacks of the project management structure 
(consortium of three local organizations with an unaffiliated Chief of Party)?
• How successful has the project been in leveraging resources of (a) the skills and organizational 
strengths of the consortium members, and (b) private and other donor partnerships?
ESRI
• Is there evidence that the independent expert services to Government of Armenia for new 
Nuclear Power Plant contributed to procedures and activities implemented in accordance with 
the western safety and environmental standards in preparation of documentation for the New 
Nuclear Power Plant?
• Is there evidence that the scenarios of power system integration contributed to increased 
understanding of renewable energy development tendencies in the region among the main 
stakeholders? 
• Is there evidence that the regional integration task contributed to an increase of regional 
cooperation with Georgia?
• What do stakeholders groups see as the results of the project?
• How relevant was the intervention in terms of Armenia’s priorities in energy sector?
PALM
• What do stakeholder groups - the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the Central Bank of 
Armenia, the Ministry of Finance of Armenia, State Revenue Service, State Employment Service 
Agency, “Pension System Awareness Center” foundation, “Youth Orientation Center” NGO – 
see as the achievements of the program?
• To what extent has the project contributed to the development of significant pension reform 
legislation and to the identification and addressing of contradictory elements?
• To what extent has the support given to the GOAM to build the foundation of Multi Pillar
Pension System contributed to the preparedness of the System to be implemented?
• To what extent did the project contribute to the advancement of the ability of the State 
Employment Service Agency to match labor market demand and to develop/implement active
labor market policies?
• How adequate was the project PMP in reporting on project progress?
USAID’
S Role in the Evaluation
The USAID Mission in Armenia will:
• provide relevant programmatic and budgetary information to the Contractor;
• provide project documents and evaluations to the Contractor;
• facilitate obtaining USAID/Mission input; and
• arrange USAID/Armenia meetings.
In some instances (although the Contractor should not depend on this), an additional USAID staff person 
may join the Contractor during the field visits/stakeholder interviews in Armenia. USAID Mission staff 
36
and/or the USAID team members will be available to assist the Contractor in providing in-depth knowledge 
of the various projects and activities that are being evaluated.
Methodology
The Contractor must:
1. Conduct a comprehensive review of performance reports and other materials and identify data 
gaps.
2. Identify data collection methodology to provide the best possible evidence to answer the evaluation 
questions, also considering feasibility issues. 
3. Identify informants and stakeholders, samples and/or other relevant data sources.
4. Prepare a field work plan. 
5. Conduct field research in Armenia.
6. Analyze data and compile key findings, conclusions and recommendations. 
7. Revise the draft reports addressing comments by USAID and submit final reports to 
USAID/Armenia for acceptance.
8. Address implementing partner comments within one week as necessary after USAID/Armenia 
shares the final reports with implementing partners, and if partners choose to submit “Statements 
of Differences”.
The proposed methodology should address the need for data collection from qualitative and quantitative 
sources, and provide the best possible combination of methods, given the evaluation questions and the 
available resources and timeline. All evaluation questions need to be answered empirically; therefore the 
data collection methods should be tailored to ensure that adequate evidence is collected to answer each of 
the questions in a definitive manner. There is no preference for any particular method. The ability of 
particular method(s) to properly answer the evaluation questions is important. Data should come from 
facts, rather than be based on anecdotal evidence. Conclusions should be based on findings received from 
multiple sources, and strengths and limitations of the methodology should be explicitly communicated. All 
people-level data should be disaggregated by sex to allow analysis of findings by sex. Baseline data for all 
projects is available from their monitoring data. A sample of indicators used for monitoring of each of the 
projects is provided in the Annex. Some of the baseline data sources include surveys, official statistics, 
automated information systems, and project records. In the case of CSLGSP baseline data was collected not 
only from participating 43 communities, but also from 15 control communities. Although not randomly 
assigned to treatment and control groups, communities nonetheless are comparable, and can therefore 
serve as comparisons for the achievements in citizen engagement in decision making and in community 
development projects. 
Deliverables
The Contractor’s deliverables must include:
1. Written methodology plans (evaluation designs and work plans). 
The evaluation designs must include detailed evaluation design matrices (including the key questions, 
the methods and data sources used to address each question), draft questionnaires and other data 
collection instruments, and known limitations to the evaluation design. The final designs require 
COR approval. The work plans must include the anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements 
and delineate the roles and responsibilities of members of the evaluation teams. The methodologies 
will be shared with relevant stakeholders, including the implementing partners for their comments 
before finalizing.
37
2. Verbal debriefing 
The evaluation teams must meet with USAID/Armenia upon arrival. The teams must also provide 
oral briefings of findings and recommendations to the USAID/Armenia senior management and 
relevant technical teams prior to departure.
3. Draft Evaluation Reports
Prepare draft evaluation reports which must analyze data and summarize key findings, conclusions 
and recommendations. 
The Findings section must list all facts and evidence received from desk research and from field 
work in relation to each evaluation question. 
The Conclusions section must analyze the facts specified in the Findings section, and must discuss 
what worked, what did not work and why. 
The Recommendations section must address issues of what can be improved for future 
programming, based on Findings and the analysis provided in the Conclusions section. More 
specifically the Recommendations section must address the following: For HS-STAR – a) what can 
be changed for future implementation of the project, b) what recommendations can be made to 
ensure sustainability of project results; for CSLGSP - what can be improved for the remainder of 
the project given the resources available; for ARM a) what changes should be made in the 
approaches and directions of the current program, and b) what recommendations can be made for 
the design of future media programs; for ESRI - what recommendations can be made for future 
energy sector programming; for PALM - what recommendations can be made for design of future 
pension reform projects.
The Evaluation Reports must at a minimum contain: 1) a 3-5 page Executive Summary 
summarizing key points (purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation 
questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations); 2) a brief description of the 
project; 3) a section on the purpose and the methodology of the evaluation; 4) a section on clearly 
defined findings, conclusions and action-oriented recommendations. This section should be 
organized around the evaluation questions defined for each project. 5) Annexes, including the 
Scope of Work; all evaluation tools; all sources of information properly identified and listed; any 
“statements of differences” regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, 
implementers and/or members of the evaluation team; disclosure of conflicts of interest forms for 
all evaluation team members, either attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing 
existing conflict of interest. 
Draft reports must be submitted to USAID/Armenia within three weeks after completing the 
fieldwork for each evaluation. USAID will be responsible for compiling Mission comments for 
inclusion and submission to the Contractor. USAID/Armenia will provide the Contractor with a 
summary of such written comments within three weeks of having received the draft reports. 
4. Final Reports
The Contractor must submit final reports to USAID/Armenia within two weeks after USAID's 
comments are provided. The reports shall follow USAID branding procedures. The reports must 
include an executive summary and not exceed 30 pages (excluding appendices).
38
The final reports must meet the following quality standards (Please see the USAID 
Evaluation Policy): a) The reports must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well￾organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why; b) 
The reports must address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work; c) The report 
shall include the scope of work as an annex; d) Evaluation methodology must be explained in 
detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and 
discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report; e) Evaluation findings must 
assess outcomes and impact on males and females; f) Limitations to the evaluation shall be 
disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation 
methodology; g) Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and 
not based on anecdotes, or the compilation of opinions; h) Sources of information need to be 
properly identified and listed in an annex; i) Recommendations need to be supported by a 
specific set of findings; j) Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, 
with defined responsibility for the action.
5. Evaluation Data 
The Contractor must submit Evaluation data to USAID/Armenia along with the final reports for 
record keeping and future use by the Mission. The data must be in an easily accessible format, such 
as MS Word documents for qualitative data, and SPSS or Excel files for quantitative data.
Schedule:
The anticipated duration of all evaluations is not to exceed nine months.
Staffing and Level of Effort:
It is expected that the Contractor will provide five different teams of consultants to carry out the 
evaluation of the five activities described above. Consultants with diverse or cross-cutting skills may 
serve on more than one evaluation team. The mix of skills necessary for each evaluation team is 
specified below. Each evaluation team should consist of two experts, although other team compositions 
might also be considered. Inclusion of qualified local Armenian experts in the evaluation teams is highly 
encouraged. All evaluation team members must be required to provide a written disclosure of conflict 
of interest.
Required Qualifications of the Personal
For all evaluation teams:
• Excellent English writing skills 
• Experience with evaluation designs, quantitative and qualitative methods and data analysis
• Substantial experience with program evaluations. Prior experience with USAID or other donor 
project evaluations is a plus. 
For HS-STAR: 
• Substantial experience in health systems management, public health, international health or a 
related field
• Substantial experience with program management and/or organizational development 
• Experience working with health projects, health systems project evaluations, or with program 
evaluations in the region is a plus
39
For ARM: 
• Substantial experience in communications, media, journalism or related field
• Experience working with media projects, media project evaluations, or with program evaluations 
in the region is a plus
For CSLGSP: 
• Substantial experience in public administration, international relations or related field with 
emphasis on civil society and local government
• Experience working with civil society and/or local government projects, experience with civil 
society and local government project evaluations, or with program evaluations in the region is a 
plus 
For PALM: 
• Substantial experience in public administration, international relations or related field with 
emphasis on social services and pension reform
• Experience working with social services or pension reform projects, experience with social 
services project evaluations, or with program evaluations in the region is a plus
For ESRI: 
• Substantial experience in engineering with emphasis on energy systems, nuclear energy or 
renewable energy
• Experience working with energy system projects, experience with energy project evaluations, or 
with program evaluations in the region is a plus
Instructions on Preparation of Branding Implementation Plan and Marking Plan
As part of the proposal submission, the Contractor will develop a Branding Implementation Plan (BIP) 
and a Marking Plan in accordance with the policies found at Automated Directive System (ADS) Chapter 
320, revised on May 5, 2009, or any successor branding policy, and with the “USAID Graphics Standard 
Manual” that is available at www.usaid.gov/branding. Among other provisions, ADS 320 states that:
1. Contractors and subcontractors' corporate identities or logos must not be used on USAID￾funded program materials.
2. Marking is not required on contractor vehicles, offices, office supplies or other commodities 
used solely for administration of the USAID-funded program.
3. Marking is not permitted on any communications that are strictly administrative, rather than 
programmatic, in nature. USAID identity is also prohibited on contractor and recipient 
communications related to award administration, such as hiring/firing of staff or renting office 
space and/or equipment. 
The Contractor shall also develop a Marking Plan for public communications, commodities, program 
materials, deliverables, and other items that visibly bear or will be marked with the USAID identity. The 
marking plan may include requests for exceptions to marking requirements, to be approved by the 
Contracting Officer. Contract deliverables to be marked with the USAID identity must follow design 
guidance for color, type, and layout in the Graphic Standards Manual (available at 
www.usaid.gov/branding) or any successor branding policy. 
40
With respect to this Task Order, the Contractor should develop a BIP and Marking Plan bearing in mind 
the following branding strategy:
1. Program Name: Evaluation of Five USAID/Armenia Projects.
2. Positioning: This task order is funded through the USAID/Armenia Mission. Materials and
communications must be positioned as from the American People, using the USAID Identity.
3. Outreach to Beneficiaries and Host-Country Citizens: No special outreach efforts to
beneficiaries and host-country citizens are planned under this Task Order.
4. Level of Visibility: The findings of the final evaluation report will be used by USAID in its 
implementation and further planning its activities. The report will be submitted to USAID’s 
Development Experience Clearinghouse for wider access.
5. Other Organizations to be Acknowledged: No other organizations are required to be
acknowledged.
6. Specific branding issues: The only branding issue expected to arise as a result of implementing
this Task Order is the proper use of graphics standards for all reports and other printed or
electronically distributed information.
Environmental Considerations
The Evaluation Services IQC has an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) approved on April 8, 2010.
The IEE has determined that the activities described under the Evaluation Services IQCs qualify for a 
categorical exclusion per 22 CFR 216. 
Any activities found to be outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental 
documentation shall be halted until an amendment to the documentation is submitted and written 
approval is received from USAID.
41
ANNEX II: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS
The evaluation team employed a comprehensive qualitative evaluation design consisting of thorough 
program document review, key informant interviews with program beneficiaries and stakeholders, and 
direct observation of ARM project sites. The findings of this evaluation are based primarily on interviews 
– nearly 50 in total – with program organizers and managers, beneficiaries, and expert observers; review 
of work plans, progress reports, and other relevant documents; and visits to selected sites (including 
two outside Yerevan) where ARM or its grant recipients are conducting or have carried out a variety of 
project-related activities. Interview subjects were selected in an attempt to capture as wide a variety of 
involvement in differing media activities and different perspectives on ARM and the Armenian media 
environment as possible. Key informants included the Chief of Party and the heads of the three 
organizations primarily responsible for designing and implementing the program (Internews Armenia, 
Eurasia Partnership Foundation, Yerevan Press Club). 
Also interviewed were staff members of those organizations who are the coordinators for specific 
program areas -- e.g. grants, regional information centers, media monitoring, proposed media literacy 
curriculum for schools, advocacy for legal reform and voluntary self-regulation, etc. -- and selected 
recipients of grants, both those awarded to individuals and those given to existing media or civil society 
organizations. To ascertain the subjects and range of alternative information the program has helped 
create, the content of several websites supported by ARM grants was also reviewed by the evaluation 
team, including Media.am, MyNews.am, Lragir.am, the Ecolur website, and the Circle.AM site, which 
records data on visitors to online news sites.. In addition, mainly with respect to KQs 1 and 2, a variety 
of journalists and journalism educators, media law specialists, NGO activists, and other informed 
observers who are knowledgeable about the wider Armenian media landscape were interviewed. A list 
of 42 interview subjects is in Annex IV of this report; there were several others who asked not to be 
named. 
Of all interview subjects, in addition to the four consortium leaders, 10 are staff members of the 
consortium organizations administering various ARM programs; 9 are recipients of ARM grants, and 5 
are Infotun partners or staff members. Also consulted was the USAID project management specialist 
who works with ARM. Representatives of two organizations that collaborate with ARM advocacy and 
freedom-of-expression projects and four teachers attending an ARM media literacy training session were 
additionally contacted. The remaining seven subjects are journalists, journalism educators, or persons 
involved in civil society organizations. In response to KQ 1, we also considered various published 
reports from international media monitoring programs such as the Media Sustainability Index (IREX), the 
World Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders), and Nations in Transit (Freedom House). 
Given the short amount of time allotted for this evaluation, data gleaned from interviewees is subject to 
some degree of selection bias. To mitigate this bias, as previously stated, the evaluation team made 
every attempt to collect data from subjects representative of the media landscape as a whole. This was 
done in consultation with USAID staff and through thorough review of project reports and other 
documents. 
ARM's goal, broadly stated, is changing the consciousness of the Armenian public. By definition, this is 
not subject to exact measurement. Nor is it possible to isolate the effects of a particular program from 
those of broader changes in the media world and the public life of Armenian society. Thus the available 
quantitative data, such as numbers of people receiving training, or the count of visitors to ARM￾supported online media sites, cannot constitute a comprehensive measurement of ARM's mid-term 
results. While it is possible to identify particular news stories initiated by ARM-supported projects that 
42
have led to citizen action challenging government decisions, such examples only serve to illustrate, 
rather than quantify, a much broader trend in the public life of the country. 
A further limitation is that ARM's activities are too numerous and varied for an evaluation to 
independently examine more than a limited number of activities in the time available. The evaluation 
team’s findings and conclusions are thus necessarily based on examples, rather than the full range of 
activities -- e.g., visits to two of the five regional information centers and interviews with eight of 33 
grant recipients. 
43
ANNEX III: SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Interviews
ARM leadership
Manana Aslamazyan, chief of party
Boris Navasardian, president of Yerevan Press Club
Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan country director, Eurasia Partnership Foundation 
Nouneh Sarkissian, managing director, Internews Armenia
ARM consortium staff 
Arevhat Grigoryan, Yerevan Press Club, editor of weekly media review 
Irene Aloyan, Yerevan Press Club, lawyer & coordinator of Media Ethics Observatory, YPC 
advocacy activities
Marina Mkhitaryan, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, program manager for Infotuns, co-manager 
for grants
Alice Ter-Ghevondian, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, program manager for grants
Artur Papayan, Internews Armenia trainer, new media expert
Gegham Vardanyan, internews Armenia, trainer 
Lusine Grigoryan , Internews Armenia, coordinator for media literacy curriculum 
Ashot Hambartsumyan, Internews Armenia, ARM program manager
Moses Hakobyan, Internews Armenia, lawyer
Vahram Martirosyan, Internews Armenia, project manager for media musem 
ARM grantees
Anna Muradyan
Inga Zafarian, president of Ecolur 
Seda Muradyan, founder and president, Public Journalism Club
Lia Mkhitaryan
Arpine Grigoryan
Anna Israelyan, online editor of Aravot
Haykazn Ghahriyan, editor-in-chief of lragir.com
Naira Hayrumyan, deputy editor of lragir.com
Gayane Mirzoyan
Infotun partners and project staff
Anahit Gevorkyan, head of Martuni Women’s Community Council 
Vruyr Malkhasyan, Martuni Infotun blog coordinator
Deborah Hall, Peace Corps volunteer at Martuni Women's Council
Arpine Hakobyan, coordinator of NGO Center, Vanadzor
Nora Minasyan, project coordinator, NGO Center, Vanadzor
Representatives of organizations collaborating with ARM projects
44
Ashot Melikyan, chairman, Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression
Ara Ghazaryan, media lawyer, member of Information Dispute Council
USAID/Armenia
Anahit Khachatryan, project management specialist
Teachers attending media literacy training in Vanadzor
Rita Mkhitiryan 
Rusana Hakhverdyan 
Nouneh Hovhannisyan 
Manush Azumanyan 
Journalists, journalism educators, civil society experts
Tatul Hakobyan, author and journalist, Civilitas
Tatyana Hovhannisyan, international journalism faculty, Yerevan Linguistic University
Sasun Khachatryan, journalist 
Lilit Arakelyan, journalist, medialab.am 
Nvard Hovhannisyan, journalist
Vladimir Osipov, Institute of Philosophy and Law, Armenian National Academy of Sciences, 
specialist on gender issues
Armine Haladjyan, officer-in-charge, UN Information office in Yerevan
Site visits
Martuni: visited Martuni Women's Community Council, toured Infotun facility, spoke with NGO and 
Infotun coordinators
Vanadzor: visited NGO Center, Vanadzor, observed part of training session for teachers on proposed 
media literacy curriculum, toured Infotun facility, spoke with NGO and program coordinators 
and several of the teachers
Yerevan: visited offices of ARM grant recipients Ecolur, Lragir.am, Public Journalism Club, Aravot daily; 
attended ARM "Social Art Action" event in English Park, spoke with participants and several 
ARM grantees
ARM documents
Reviewed workplans, quarterly and year-end progress reports to USAID, newsletters and 
announcements 
ARM-supported Websites
Reviewed contents of Media.am, MyNews.am, Lragir.am
45
Published reports on Armenian media from media and human rights monitoring groups
Reporters Without Borders, 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index, 
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html 
Freedom House, Armenia Freedom of the Press 2012 and Nations in Transit 2012, Ratings and 
Democracy Score Summary 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2012/armenia 
http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2012%20%20NIT%20Tables.pdf 
IREX Armenia Media Sustainability Index 2012 
http://www.irex.org/system/files/u105/EE_MSI_2012_Armenia.pdf 
Committee to Protect Journalists, Attacks on the Press 2010: Armenia
http://www.cpj.org/2011/02/attacks-on-the-press-2010-armenia.php 
Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression, Quarterly Reports and 2011 Annual Report
http://khosq.am/en/reports/ 
http://khosq.am/en/reports/annual-report-2011-2/ 
Open Society Foundation-Armenia and Journalists for the Future, Monitoring of Armenian Online Media 
Coverage of May 6. 2012 Elections to RA National Assembly
Civilitas Foundation, Armenia 2011, Without Illusions
Interview log
10/15 Manana Aslamazyan, chief of party, Boris Navasardian, president of Yerevan Press Club
Overview of ARM program, activities, leadership structure
10/15 Tatul Hakobyan, author and journalist, Civilitas
State of Armenian media
10/15 Arevhat Grigoryan, Yerevan Press Club, editor of weekly media review 
Overview of media monitoring activities
10/15 Irene Aloyan, Yerevan Press Club, lawyer & coordinator of Media Ethics Observatory, YPC 
advocacy activities
Reviewed legal and advocacy activities
10/16 Manana Aslamazyan, Gevorg Ter-Gabrielyan country director, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, 
Nouneh Sarkissian, managing director, Internews Armenia
Overview of ARM program, activities, leadership structure
10/16 Tatyana Hovhannisyan, international journalism faculty, Yerevan Linguistic University
perspectives on Armenian media, professional standards, state of journalism education, public attitudes 
toward new media and traditional media
46
10/16 Inga Zafarian, president of Ecolur, ARM grantee
Reviewed Ecolur activities supported by ARM grant using alternative media to report on 
environmental issues & followup activities 
10/17 Marina Mkhitaryan, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, program manager for Infotuns, co-manager 
for grants, 
Reviewed Infotun program, training and social media activities, partnerships, details of programs at 
Martuni and Vanadzor infotuns
 
10/17 Alice Ter-Ghevondian, Eurasia Partnership Foundation, program manager for grants
reviewed grant competition, selection, specific projects e.g. "crowd-sourced" reporting of 
election violations
10/17 Ashot Melikyan, chairman, Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression
overview of press freedom issues, CPFE cooperation with Yerevan Press Club in media monitoring, 
advocacy activities; training on legislative & ethics issues; "self-regulation" of defamation cases; proposed 
reform of broadcast law
10/17 Artur Papayan, new media trainer
reviewed I-DTORD election monitoring project, training approach, positive experience with Infotuns, 
landscape of traditional and new Armenian media, problem of maintaining professional standards in new 
media
10/17 Anna Muradyan, ARM grantee
Reviewed her activity in creating online platform "info village," work with secondary school students 
reporting on events & issues in their schools in various regions
10/17 Seda Muradyan, ARM grantee, founder Public Journalism Club
Reviewed her project preparing for new media, mobile phone apps for monitoring/coverage of 
presidential election, work on MyNews site, material republished in other online media
10/18 Ara Ghazaryan, media lawyer, member of Information Dispute Council
Reviewed structure and work of IDC, history of defamation cases & current issues, ongoing work to 
reform broadcasting law
10/18 Nouneh Sarkissian, director Internews Armenia
reviewed management structure issues; training programs for professionals and "citizen contributors," 
Media.am website, media literacy projects
10/18 Gegham Vardanyan, internews Armenia, trainer 
reviewed their monitoring program, paid contributors Write media analysis pieces, 2-3-4/month, 
monitor entertainment as well as news content
10/19 visited Martuni Infotun. presentations/interviews: Anahit Gevorkyan, head of Martuni Women’s 
Community Council; Vruyr Malkhazyan, Martuni Infotun blog coordinator; Deborah Hall, Peace Corps 
volunteer at Martuni Women's Council; Tigran Baghishjanyan, one of their local contributors
reviewed Infotun program, history of Women's Community Council & cooperation with ARM, 
use of contributors from 12 villages in region, program to teach Skype to help people communicate with 
family members in Russia, viewed refurbished computer room w equipment from Orange telecom co.
47
10/19 Anna Israelyan, online editor of Aravot
Reviewed activities to be supported by ARM grant supporting transition to "convergent newsroom" 
10/20 at Social Art Action event in English Park, Yerevan, interviewed ARM grantees Lia Mkhitaryan, 
founder of eiwa.am, and Arpine Grigoryan of Pan-Armenian network
Reviewed grant activities to raise awareness, promote use of alternative media by artists and 
others to provide content on social, other public issues
10/21 visit to Vanadzor Infotun. observed training for teachers conducted by Tigran Hakobyan, media 
mgr & consultant, Mesrop Harutunyan, expert on media literacy handbook; interviewed Lusine 
Grigoryan (Internews, coordinator for media literacy); Nora Minasyan, project coordinator, NGO
Center, Vanadzor; Arpine Grigoryan, infotun coordinator; Vagham Martirosyan, Internews staff
reviewed teacher training & other infotun activities including training on internet use, Skype, "citizen 
contributors" in villages, "civil society day" observance & coop with other NGOs
interviewed 4 teachers, Rita Mkhitiryan, Rusana Hakhverdyan, Nouneh Hovhannisyan, 
Manush Azumanyan; asked about no. of students in their schools who have computers at home, student 
knowledge & use of social media
10/22 further interview w Manana Aslamazyan, additional details on training programs, no. of 
professionals and citizen contributors trained, visits to ARM supported sites, media literacy programs, 
focus on remaining period of program; Vagham Martirosyan, on background & need for media literacy 
program
10/22 also interviewed Ashot Hambartsumyan, Internews Armenia, ARM program manager; reviewed 
media literacy, outreach to editors & media managers; short interview w Moses Hakobyan, Internews 
lawyer, reiterated and confirmed account of broadcast law reform effort
10/23 Haykazn Ghahriyan, editor-in-chief, and Naira Hayrumyan, deputy editor of lragir.com
Reviewed examples of local stories reported by citizens w ARM support
10/25 Gayane Mirzoyan, ARM grantee
reviewed her activities collecting and editing "hyperlocal" citizen contributions, training contributors in 
cooperation w UNDP Yerevan
10/25 group interview w/ Yerevan journalists, graduates of Caucasus School of Journalism in Tbilisi. 
Group included Sasun Khachatryan, Lilit Arakelyan, Nvard Hovhannisyan, one other who doesn't want 
name used
Discussed state of media, censorship & selfcensorship, lack of public trust esp in TV channels
10/26 Armine Haladjyan, officer-in-charge, UN Information office in Yerevan; Vladimir Osipov, Institute 
of Philosophy and Law, Armenian National Academy of Sciences, specialist on gender issues
Perspective on media landscape, increasing use of social media & other new platforms, loss of trust in 
TV broadcasters & other traditional media, weakness of print media.
48
ANNEX IV: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
Following are sample interview questions for respondents including responsible program managers for 
ARM and the three consortium organizations; grantees and participants in ARM-supported projects; and 
outside observers including journalists, journalism educators, civil society activists, etc. 
Questions for ARM director and consortium representatives:
-- What specific examples can you give where the program has developed alternative platforms for 
disseminating information and expression of citizens' questions, needs, opinions, and demands for 
accountability?
-- How have institutions and officials responded? Have these projects led to any change in reporting by 
traditional news media?
-- Has your experience led you to identify which platforms and skills best serve to improve public 
knowledge and empower citizens? Blogging? Social media such as Facebook? Telecommunication hubs? 
Support for local production of video/audio materials, documentaries, etc.? 
-- Which platforms and skills will you concentrate on in the remaining two years of the program?
-- What steps have you taken to ensure that the projects you have supported will be sustained?
-- How do you assess the project management structure?
-- How effectively have you made use of the skills and organizational strengths of the consortium 
members and other donor partners?
Questions for grantees and program participants:
-- Summarize your project's goals, your planned course of action, and what was actually carried out.
-- What community, population group. policy area or institution did you hope to influence? What 
changes were you able to observe? Did you see any change in reporting by traditional media on issues 
or subjects relevant to your project?
-- What new technology or communication systems were developed or used in your project? Who used 
them? Did experience show that some platforms or skills were more effective than others? If so and if 
the project is continuing, which technologies will you concentrate on for the remaining activities?
-- Will this project continue after the ARM program ends? What steps are you taking to make it 
sustainable? 
-- What was your relationship with ARM and its constituent organizations? Did you need training, 
guidance, administrative support, and were those provided?
Questions for journalists, journalism educators, NGO and civil society activists, and other 
observers of media and civic life:
49
-- How do you assess Armenian media on the following issues:
-- Professional standards (accuracy, independence, news judgment)
-- Making public officials and other power holders accountable to the public
-- Giving a voice to those without power or influence, and reporting on their needs and 
concerns
-- What is your experience and perspective with new media and alternative information sources and 
their role in Armenian public life? What has been the effect of those new platforms on independent 
reporting, citizen advocacy, and accountability of public officials?
-- If you are familiar with ARM or any of the projects it supports, how relevant have they been to the 
challenges facing media and civil society?
-- As far as you are aware, how has ARM contributed to creating opportunities for alternative sources 
of information and opinion, increased access to those alternative sources, and an improved environment 
for media independence?
50
ANNEX V: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Name Arnold R. Isaacs
Title Evaluation Specialist
Organization Social Impact, Inc.
Evaluation Position? Team Leader 
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
Contract No: AID-RAN-I-00-09-00016
Task Order No: AID-111-TO-12-00002
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), 
implementer name(s) and award 
number(s), if applicable)
Alternative Resources in Media (ARM)
I have real or potential conflicts 
of interest to disclose. No
If yes answered above, I disclose 
the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may 
include, but are not limited to:
1. Close family member who is an employee 
of the USAID operating unit managing the 
project(s) being evaluated or the 
implementing organization(s) whose 
project(s) are being evaluated.
2. Financial interest that is direct, or is 
significant though indirect, in the 
implementing organization(s) whose 
projects are being evaluated or in the 
outcome of the evaluation.
3. Current or previous direct or significant 
though indirect experience with the 
project(s) being evaluated, including 
involvement in the project design or 
previous iterations of the project.
4. Current or previous work experience or 
seeking employment with the USAID 
operating unit managing the evaluation or 
the implementing organization(s) whose 
project(s) are being evaluated.
5. Current or previous work experience with 
an organization that may be seen as an 
industry competitor with the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, 
groups, organizations, or objectives of the 
particular projects and organizations being 
evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date
24 January 2013
51
Name Suren Deheryan
Title Evaluation Specialist
Organization Social Impact, Inc.
Evaluation Position? Local Evaluator 
Evaluation Award Number
(contract or other instrument)
Contract No: AID-RAN-I-00-09-00016
Task Order No: AID-111-TO-12-00002
USAID Project(s) Evaluated
(Include project name(s), 
implementer name(s) and award 
number(s), if applicable)
Alternative Resources in Media (ARM)
I have real or potential conflicts 
of interest to disclose. No
If yes answered above, I disclose 
the following facts:
Real or potential conflicts of interest may 
include, but are not limited to:
7. Close family member who is an employee 
of the USAID operating unit managing the 
project(s) being evaluated or the 
implementing organization(s) whose 
project(s) are being evaluated.
8. Financial interest that is direct, or is 
significant though indirect, in the 
implementing organization(s) whose 
projects are being evaluated or in the 
outcome of the evaluation.
9. Current or previous direct or significant 
though indirect experience with the 
project(s) being evaluated, including 
involvement in the project design or 
previous iterations of the project.
10. Current or previous work 
experience or seeking employment with 
the USAID operating unit managing the 
evaluation or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated.
11. Current or previous work 
experience with an organization that may 
be seen as an industry competitor with the 
implementing organization(s) whose
project(s) are being evaluated.
12. Preconceived ideas toward 
individuals, groups, organizations, or 
objectives of the particular projects and 
organizations being evaluated that could 
bias the evaluation. 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update 
this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other 
companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished.
Signature
Date
24 January 2013
52
USAID ARMENIA
1 AMERICAN AVENUE
YEREVAN 0082, ARMENIA
TELEPHONE: +37410 46 47 00
FAX: +37410 46 47 28
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523
53