DISCLAIMER This report is made possible by the support of the America people made possible by the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility 
of the Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the 
United States Government. 
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4 
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Jordan Monitoring and Evaluation Support Program 
(MESP) 
“CREATE EQUALITY” MURAL IN ZARQA JORDAN BY KEVIN LEDO, SUPPORTED BY THE USAID TAKAMOL ACTIVITY
III | SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 
CONTENTS 
ACRONYMS IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, INTENDED USES 6
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 6
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 6
TIMELINE AND PROCESS OVERVIEW 6
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
EVALUATION QUESTION 1 8
EVALUATION QUESTION 2 11
EVALUATION QUESTION 3 13
EVALUATION QUESTION 3A 13
EVALUATION QUESTION 3B 16
EVALUATION QUESTION 3C 17
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 21
ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) 27
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESIGN WITH INSTRUMENTS 33
ANNEX C: GETTING TO ANSWERS 39
ANNEX D: WORK PLAN 42
ANNEX E: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 45
ANNEX F: ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 57
ANNEX G: GENDER STRATEGY ROADMAP 58
ANNEX H: THE GENDER MANAGEMENT CONTINUUM 62
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | IV
ACRONYMS 
AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy 
CEDAW Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 
DO Development Objective 
DRG Democracy, Human Rights and Governance 
EDE Economic Development and Energy 
EDY Education and Youth 
EQ Evaluation Question 
GBV Gender-Based violence 
GDA Global Development Alliance 
IP Implementing Partner 
JNCW Jordanian National Commission for Women 
KII Key Informant Interview 
MSI Management Systems International 
PFH Population and Family Health 
POC Point of Contact 
PPR Performance Plan and Report 
SDO Special Development Objective 
SIGI Social Institutions and Gender Index 
SOW Statement of Work 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
USG United States Government 
WRE Water Resources and Environment
1 | SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
Gender equality and women’s empowerment are critical issues in Jordan. The country’s constitution 
mandates equality for all citizens, yet laws restrict women’s employment options. Jordan lifted its 
reservation to the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 
(CEDAW) on freedom of movement and residence, but left male dominance on family matters. 
Statistics show that more women than men enrolled in university, but less than 15 percent of 
women participate in the workforce due to social, economic, political and cultural factors that 
include unconducive workplaces, poor transportation options and cultural norms dictating that a 
women’s place is in the home. 
In 2012, as part of its 2013–2017 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), the United 
States Agency for International Development (USAID) established a special development objective 
(SDO) to enhance gender equality and female empowerment. The purpose of this SDO is to pursue 
more effective investments in gender equality and female empowerment to accelerate progress in 
development. The development hypothesis underlying this SDO is that enhancement of female 
empowerment and gender equality will follow promotion of changes in discriminatory social norms 
and practices, strengthening of advocacy and policy reforms for women’s issues and expanded access 
to female-centered services. SDO4 was designed to achieve a specific set of development objectives, 
represented through the results framework shown in Figure 1, as well as support other DOs in 
strengthening gender integration in the context of their programs. 
FIGURE 1: SDO4 RESULTS FRAMEWORK. 
EVALUATION PURPOSE 
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide USAID/Jordan with an analysis and strategic 
recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach that 
supports SDO4, “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment,” to mainstream gender across Mission 
programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID/Jordan’s programmatic decisions for the 
future of SDO4 and the Gender Development Objective (DO) Team.
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2 
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This evaluation relied primarily on qualitative data collection from USAID/Jordan, 
USAID/Washington, USAID/Rwanda, USAID/Tanzania and the USAID/Jordan Takamol activity. 
USAID/Jordan provided secondary data. Additionally, select findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations from the Takamol mid-term performance evaluation report informed this 
evaluation report. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
EQ1. To what extent has addressing gender gaps contributed to achieving USAID’s goals for 
expanding economic opportunities, increasing citizen participation, improving educational outcomes 
and achieving more sustainable population growth? 
EQ2. Has USAID been able to build sustainable synergies across USAID activities? Which 
interventions (either individually or within a thematic area) have been effective to build synergies and 
have these synergies been maximized? In what ways can they be improved? 
EQ3. How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the Mission? 
1. How did USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration impact 
effectiveness? 
2. Do the team members receive sufficient support from management to be active members 
and confident Gender experts of the DO team and feel empowered to pursue increasing 
gender integration? 
3. What has the DO team done well in gender integration and what can be improved? 
KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
This executive summary shares conclusions and recommendations grouped by key themes that 
correspond to the three evaluation questions: 1) stand-alone gender DO, 2) management and 
implementation, 3) strategic focus and 4) sustainability and synergy. 
Maintaining a Stand-Alone Gender DO. Given Jordan’s political, economic and social context, 
gender is a critical issue. USAID/Jordan is one of only two USAID missions to have a gender DO; 
creating this separate SDO elevated the importance and visibility of gender within USAID and with 
the Government of Jordan. The SDO has faced management and implementation challenges, though 
similar challenges exist whether gender is a stand-alone DO or a crosscutting theme. 
The evaluation team recommends that USAID/Jordan maintain a gender DO because of the critical 
status of gender in Jordan and the visibility the SDO lends to gender issues, and because the 
management and implementation issues surrounding the SDO can be mitigated.
Management and Implementation. The management and implementation of SDO4 are key 
factors for the success of gender integration across the Mission’s portfolio, as is support from 
leadership regarding gender as a priority. Accordingly, SDO4 would be more successful with a 
clearer and more transparent mandate and structure. 
The evaluation team recommends SDO4 be located in the Program Office, with representation from 
technical offices as appropriate and at least one full-time dedicated gender expert. Furthermore, the 
team recommends the establishment of a management team responsible for planning, strategy, 
design and implementation of gender integration across the USAID/Jordan portfolio, along with an 
advisory team who will promote gender integration and continue to raise awareness of gender 
issues at the Mission and with external partners. The Mission Order “Implementation on Gender 
Equality and Female Empowerment” should be updated and should outline clear roles and 
3 | SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV 
responsibilities of SDO4 team members. These roles and responsibilities should be officially 
incorporated into position descriptions/work objectives of team members and their supervisors, to 
ensure accountability on both ends. Mission leadership should confirm and communicate gender as a 
priority. 
As a way to clarify objectives for SDO4, the evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 team 
incorporate adaptive management approaches, holding a retreat or series of strategy sessions to 
update the SDO4 strategy, identify implementation priorities and reach consensus on how to work 
together. The team should identify periodic check-in points to review progress and make 
adjustments as needed. 
Strategic Focus. While respondents noted that it has been difficult to discern SDO4’s overarching 
strategy, the latest version of the USAID/Jordan CDCS includes a fully developed gender strategy, 
while the last three years of performance plan and report (PPR) documents have aggregated results 
related to gender integration. 
The evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 team revisit the gender strategy as articulated in 
the CDCS, adapting or focusing it as needed and ensuring that team members are aware of the 
strategy and plan for achievement. Additionally, the gender integration strategy should be routinely 
communicated to other USAID/Jordan staff. 
Sustainability and Synergy. Clear definitions and objectives for sustainability and synergy 
regarding gender integration are needed to help frame SDO4 objectives. 
The evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 team complement its internal achievements of 
capacity building and training by focusing externally to create more of a service-orientation approach 
to relationships with technical offices. Additionally, the SDO4 team should routinely communicate its 
objectives, roles and responsibilities and corresponding activities to all USAID/Jordan staff. 
INTRODUCTION 
Gender equality and women’s empowerment are critical issues in Jordan. The country’s constitution 
mandates equality for all citizens while other laws restrict women’s employment options. Jordan 
lifted its reservation to the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
Women (CEDAW) on freedom of movement and residence, but left male dominance on family 
matters. Statistics show more women than men are enrolled in university, but less than 15 percent 
of women participate in the workforce due to social, economic, political and cultural factors that 
include unconducive workplaces, poor transportation options and cultural norms dictating that a 
women’s place is in the home. 
According to a public poll, only 44 percent of men agree that women and men should have equal 
rights, compared to 82 percent of women; 57 percent of men and 42 percent of women believe men 
are better leaders.1 Jordan does not perform well on indices measuring gender equality, such as the 
Global Gender Gap Index and Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI). In the 2016 Global 
Gender Gap Report, which looks at economic participation and opportunities, educational 
enrollment, health and survival and political empowerment among women and men, Jordan ranked 
134 out of 144 countries, performing poorly in several categories such as economic participation 
(ranked 138), health and survival (134) and political participation (123).2 The 2014 SIGI report 
 
1 Women’s Leadership as a Route to Greater Empowerment: Jordan Case Study
2 http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/economies/#economy=JOR
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4 
highlighted prevailing gender-based violence (GBV) and male guardianship over women as major 
obstacles to gender equality in Jordan.3 
USAID/Jordan’s Strategic Approach. In 2012, as part of its 2013–2017 Country Development 
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), USAID established a special development objective (SDO) to 
enhance gender equality and female empowerment. The purpose of this SDO is to pursue more 
effective investments in gender equality and female empowerment to accelerate development. The 
SDO has two prongs. One is focused on achieving the development hypothesis as represented in the 
results framework, drawing on the activity under SDO4 as well as the activities of other DOs. This 
development hypothesis is premised on the idea that enhancement of female empowerment and 
gender equality will follow the promotion of changes in discriminatory social norms and practices 
are promoted, strengthening of advocacy and policy reforms for women’s issues and expanded 
access to female-centered services. The second prong is designed to provide support to other DOs. 
Implementing the Strategy. Internally, USAID established the Gender DO Team, composed of 
representatives from the technical and support offices within the Mission. The team’s mandate is to 
help integrate gender across USAID’s programming, coordinate efforts within and among the 
USAID/Jordan portfolio and provide advice and programming guidance on gender issues. Members 
are viewed as gender advocates and gender points of contact (POCs) within their offices and they 
communicate on a variety of issues to and from the Gender Team. To date, the Gender Team has 
been housed by the Democracy, Rights and Governance (DRG) Office; the Gender Team Leader 
and Takamol Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) are both DRG staff. In an effort to rotate 
leadership and maintain a robust team and portfolio, the leadership of the Gender Team was 
transferred in September 2016 to a staff member from the Program Office; the plan is that the 
leadership of this team will rotate every two years. 
At the activity level, USAID/Jordan contracted out its Takamol activity to work with communities to 
raise awareness and promote attitude-shifting dialogue on gender equality while supporting partners 
in civil society and government to make specific improvements in conditions for women. In addition, 
Takamol has a crosscutting role in supporting both other DOs and implementing partners (IPs), 
reflecting the role of the SDO4 team.
 
3 http://www.genderindex.org/country/jordan
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 5 
FIGURE 2: CREATING A SYNERGISTIC APPROACH FOR SDO4: 
AN OVERVIEW OF STRATEGY AND UNDERLYING MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6 
EVALUATION PURPOSE, AUDIENCE, INTENDED USES 
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide USAID/Jordan with an analysis and strategic 
recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach that 
supports SDO4, “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment,” to mainstream gender across Mission 
programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID/Jordan’s programmatic decisions for the 
future of the SDO and the Gender Team; the evaluation team also expects the evaluation results will 
provide insights to USAID/Washington and other missions. The full statement of work (SOW) for 
this evaluation is in Annex A.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
1. To what extent has addressing gender gaps contributed to achieving USAID’s goals for 
expanding economic opportunities, increasing citizen participation, improving educational 
outcomes and achieving more sustainable population growth? 
2. Has USAID been able to build sustainable synergies across USAID activities? Which 
interventions (either individually or within a thematic area) have been effective to build 
synergies and have these synergies been maximized? In what ways can they be improved? 
3. How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the Mission? 
a. How did USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration 
impact effectiveness? For example, was creating a separate DO the best approach to 
achieving the desired objectives or are there other more effective approaches? 
b. Do the team members receive sufficient support from management to be active 
members and confident Gender experts of the DO team and feel empowered to 
pursue increasing gender integration? 
c. What has the DO team done well in gender integration and what can be improved? 
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
This section describes the overall methodology that was used to answer the evaluation questions. 
The evaluation’s design, including final data collection instruments, is in Annex B. This report was 
originally written in February and March 2017 and was updated in June 2017 to include relevant 
findings from the Takamol mid-term performance evaluation report. 
TIMELINE AND PROCESS OVERVIEW 
The evaluation team’s initial review of documents relevant to SDO4 began January 29, 2017. From 
early to mid-February, the evaluation team developed the evaluation design and work plan, including 
instruments for key informant interviews with SDO4 team members, Mission leadership, program 
and technical office staff, and an online survey for SDO4 team members (past and present). The 
SDO4 evaluation team collected primary data from January 29 to February 17, 2017; the survey of 
SDO4 team effectiveness was open to current and past members of the SDO4 team from February 
13-15, 2017. 
Analysis of the primary and secondary data was ongoing and a preliminary debriefing summarizing 
findings, conclusions and recommendations to date and delivered to USAID on February 16, 2017. 
This version of the final report incorporates the full analysis of data. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 7 
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The evaluation team collected, reviewed and analyzed both primary and secondary data for this 
evaluation and focused primarily on collecting qualitative data through in-depth interviews; limited 
quantitative data collection through a survey complemented the qualitative data. 
PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION 
The evaluation team collected primary data through a series of interviews with USAID/Jordan, 
USAID/Washington, USAID/Rwanda and USAID/Tanzania. The team developed eight instruments to 
collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Table 1 shows how the team used each instrument for 
each respondent type. Annex B contains the instruments. 
SECONDARY DATA SOURCES 
Major secondary sources consulted for this evaluation included the following documents. These 
documents were the source of the activity monitoring data used in this report. For a full list of
documents used, see Annex B.
1. USAID/Jordan Country Development Cooperation Strategy 2013–2019 
2. Gender PPRs 
3. Mission Order: Implementation of Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment 
4. SDO4 Team Charter 
Respondent Type Number of 
Interviewees
Data 
Collection 
Method
Instrument
SDO4 Team Members (past 
and present)4
13
In-depth 
interviews
Interview Questions for SDO4 Team
Mission Leadership 6 Interview Questions for Mission Leadership
Technical Office Leads 5 Interview Questions for Technical Offices
Technical Office Staff 4 Interview Questions for Technical Offices
Program Office Staff 4 Interview Questions for Program Office
Takamol Activity Staff 2 Interview Questions for Takamol
USAID Mission Staff 
(Rwanda and Tanzania)
3 Interview Questions for Mission Gender 
POCs
USAID/Washington 2 Interview Questions for Washington Gender 
POCs 
Total Interviewees 39
SDO4 Team Members (past 
and present)
11 Online 
Survey
SDO4 Team Survey
Total Respondents (out of 
15)
11
 
4
 Several interviewees, particularly with SDO4 team members, fit into multiple respondent types, so the evaluation team used its 
discretion to determine the most appropriate instrument to use. 
TABLE 1. SDO4 EVALUATION: DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND 
INSTRUMENTS BY RESPONDENT TYPE.
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8 
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 
This evaluation relied on content analysis of in-depth interviews, survey data and relevant 
documents. When applicable, this report provides findings, conclusions or recommendations by 
respondent group, such as Mission leadership or SDO4 Team. 
COORDINATION WITH TAKAMOL EVALUATION TEAM 
The evaluation of SDO4 overlapped with a midterm performance evaluation of the Takamol activity. 
Both evaluation teams worked together to identify areas of complementarity and specific areas 
where one evaluation would strengthen the other. 
The SDO4 evaluation team expects that the Takamol evaluation findings related to one of their 
evaluation questions will enrich SDO4 evaluation findings regarding information specific to Takamol’s 
potential creation of synergies. The evaluation question from Takamol that has the greatest 
relevance for this evaluation is: 
Takamol EQ2: Has Takamol built synergies with other activities across the Mission portfolio? Why 
or why not? In what ways can they be improved? 
In May 2017, the SDO4 evaluation team received a draft of the Takamol mid-term performance 
evaluation report. The SDO4 team reviewed the report, and in June 2017 integrated relevant 
findings into this version of the evaluation report. 
LIMITATIONS 
SDO4 evaluation question 1 focuses on the extent to which addressing gender gaps contributes to 
the achievement of USAID’s other goals (or development objectives). While the evaluation can 
provide impressionistic answers to this question based on interviewees’ perceptions, the evaluation 
team cannot ascertain attribution or even correlation. 
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
EVALUATION QUESTION 1 
To what extent has addressing gender gaps contributed to achieving USAID’s goals for expanding 
economic opportunities, increasing citizen participation, improving educational outcomes and 
achieving more sustainable populations growth? 
FINDINGS 
Interviews indicated a strong consensus that addressing gender gaps contributes significantly to 
achieving development outcomes and that gender is a critical aspect of USAID’s work across 
sectors, especially given Jordan’s social, political and economic context. However, the extent to 
which addressing those gaps has contributed to the achievement USAID objectives is not clear. Few 
respondents were able to identify tangible examples of how gender integration in USAID activities 
and interventions are contributing to meeting objectives, although several noted examples of how 
their teams are including gender considerations into their work. The text box that follows provides 
examples drawn from interviews, while Table 2 highlights achievements mentioned in the FY 2016 
Gender PPR. However, the examples cited in interviews are activities (or what the technical team is 
doing) and the achievements summarized in the PPR are outputs rather than outcomes. Finally, 
interviews revealed that USAID’s overarching gender strategy was not clear to most Mission staff. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 9 
GENDER-RELATED WORK NOTED BY TECHNICAL OFFICES
The Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) Team trained women politicians; 
successful women candidates exceeded the quota by five seats in the most recent election.
The Economic Development and Energy (EDE) Team is helping create a flex-time/part-time 
bylaw that is intended to facilitate women’s participation in the workforce.
The Education and Youth (EDY) Team plans to focus on improving boys’ education to address 
low performance and high dropout rates, relative to girls.
The Population and Family Health (PFH) Team is targeting men more in its family planning 
efforts, since they are often the decision-makers in the household and need to be 
sensitized/made aware of family planning options; health systems strengthening efforts also 
incorporate ways to address gender issues.
The Water Resources and Environment (WRE) Team has trained its implementing partners on 
how gender is relevant for the water sector.
FY 2016 PPR Gender-Related Achievements
Policy and 
Legal 
Frameworks
 Supported Ministry of Labor revise the Jordanian Labor Code for 
greater flexibility for women’s alternative work arrangements
 Helped Jordanian National Commission for Women (JNCW) to 
develop policy briefs
 Supported drafting of 45 policies and laws to promote gender equality 
(e.g., businesses that will allow women to move into the formal sector)
 Worked on gender-based policies related to Jordan's Equal Futures 
Partnership Action Plan; revisions to civil services bylaws will ensure 
equal opportunities in seeking leadership /supervisory positions
Capacity 
Building and 
Training
 Hosted 350 community meetings and trainings to challenge perceptions, 
counter gender-based violence and highlight role models
 Organized training/networking events for women in the energy & 
engineering sectors
 Provided teacher training on gender-sensitive approaches to improve 
schoolchildren’s reading and math skills
 Engaged parliamentary and civil society organizations in training and 
advocacy to encourage the use of gender-lens in legislation, policy and 
strategy formation
 Trained 300 women leaders considering running for parliamentary 
elections; 191 ran campaigns and 11 won seats in the September 2016 
elections
TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF FY 2016 PPR GENDER-RELATED ACHIEVEMENTS.
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10
FY 2016 PPR Gender-Related Achievements
Communications 
and Outreach
 Used social dialogue and policy tools to promote knowledge and 
awareness on the role of women in elections, and women’s low 
participation in the workforce
 Partnered with the JNCW and local media-related civil society 
organizations to enhance engagement to shift toward issue-based voting
 Conducted social media outreach on women's access to finance and 
placing women's economic participation on the political agenda (120,000 
views)
Technical 
Assistance
 Supported 25 female lawyers to offer information on laws (Personal 
Status Law, Labor Law, Domestic Violence Law and the Anti-Human 
Trafficking Law)
 Supported the Women's Caucus and town hall meetings
 Revised gender indicators in the budget law and increased the 
Government of Jordan’s capacity to collect/analyze data to ensure 
equitable distribution of government resources
 Supported more than 300 women-owned businesses to enhance the 
quality and productivity, integrating them into supply chains, helping 
them develop financial management skills to comply with legal and 
regulatory changes
 Strengthened microfinance institutions by introducing new products and 
services that will benefit more than 2,000 women in 2017
 Supported 27 women-owned/ led small and medium enterprises, 
enabling them to receive loan guarantees totaling USD $3.5 million
CONCLUSIONS 
Interviews revealed a relatively strong consensus that, in principle, addressing gender gaps 
contributes to achieving USAID’s goals for expanding economic opportunities, increasing citizen 
participation, improving educational outcomes and achieving more sustainable population growth. 
However, few interviewees provided tangible examples of outcomes (or higher-level results). While 
the PPR identifies a range of significant outputs that are ultimately intended to achieve higher-level 
outcomes, the extent to which those outcomes will be achieved is not yet clear. 
This evaluation is occurring beyond the halfway point of the strategy (2013-2019). Considering the 
life cycle of strategies and activities, most outcomes take more time to achieve and occur in the 
latter phases of implementation. 
This question assumes a model where the integration of gender enhances cumulative development 
outcomes at the higher level. In practice, the evaluation team found a much more complex model. 
That is, gender is substantively integrated at every level of the results framework, both as a means to 
an end (to enhance development objectives) and as an end itself, as reflected in higher-level results. 
For example, DO1 is “Broad-based, Inclusive Economic Development Accelerated.” Inclusiveness 
means that both genders must benefit. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 11
The fact that USAID’s overarching gender strategy is not clear for most staff means that both the 
development hypothesis and the higher-level objectives (and associated indicators) are not a guiding 
focus. In a sense, this contributes to an understanding of gender to a series of activities, which may 
or may not lead to larger objectives and outcome measures. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The SDO4 team should review the gender strategy in the CDCS, and incorporate that strategy as a 
focal point for the team—similar to how a technical office uses the results framework as a guiding 
reference for analysis, project design, monitoring and evaluation, and implementation. Second, the 
team should consider taking a strategic approach toward gender programming by identifying the 
highest priorities within each technical sector. Finally, it is important for the SDO4 team to regularly 
and proactively communicate the gender integration strategy and key priorities to other technical 
teams. Annex C excerpts and summarizes USAID/Jordan’s gender strategy as described in the CDCS 
and summarizes the results reported in the most recent PPR. This is intended to assist the SDO4 
Team by organizing the overarching gender strategy and results reporting against that strategy in one 
document. 
For future consideration, the evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 Team consider revising 
an impact question to simply focus on what outcomes have been achieved, either as a result of 
integration or in terms of achieving gender objectives in their own right. This was a common point 
that emerged across interviews from respondents themselves, and is important to understand, 
particularly as the strategy enters into the latter phases of maturity. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 2 
Has USAID been able to build sustainable synergies across USAID activities? Which interventions 
have been effective to build synergies and have these synergies been maximized? In what ways can 
they be improved? 
FINDINGS 
Overall, most respondents were not able to define sustainability or synergy in the context of the 
gender program. In particular, most members of the SDO4 team viewed sustainability through an 
internal lens, meaning they believe building internal capacity is a good way to build sustainability, in 
contrast to viewing it through a program lens. One respondent framed sustainability as systems, 
processes, policies and behaviors that support gender integration and that exist independently, 
without additional SDO4 support. This respondent defined synergy as the ability of the SDO4 team 
to view activities across the entire USAID/Jordan portfolio and identify opportunities to work across 
programs to maximize impact. 
Respondents recognized that potential exists for creating greater synergy, but said they are not 
undertaking systematic or regular efforts to work with other teams. In particular, the SDO4 team 
thought that having representation from technical offices was a good way to promote synergy. 
Respondents identified a couple of instances where synergies were leveraged. One was the WRE 
Office and SDO4 team putting together a two-day water and gender training for IPs, WRE technical 
team members and Ministry of Water staff. The other example, mentioned by two respondents 
from different technical offices, was a Global Development Alliance (GDA) that included DRG, EDE 
and the Program Office. The GDA resulted in young women and men being trained to work in the 
hospitality sector. 
The Takamol mid-term performance evaluation found that Takamol facilitated several synergies with 
implementers and activities in the technical areas of Democracy, Rights, and Governance (IP 
National Democratic Institute for Public Affairs; Rule of Law and Public Accountability Strengthening 
activity) and Economic Development and Energy (Building Economic Sustainability through Tourism; 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12
Jordan Competitiveness Program; and Local Enterprise Support activities). Enabling factors for these 
synergies included interest and commitment from IPs and common objectives of the implementers. 
The Takamol evaluation noted that Takamol and IPs expected USAID would take a leading role in 
coordinating synergies and provide direction about where gender fits into activities; both Takamol 
and IPs felt that the level of USAID coordination did not meet these expectations. From USAID’s 
perspective, the evaluation team found that USAID lacked internal clarity around the definition, 
vision and strategy to achieve synergy, including the extent to which Takamol should be integrated 
into partner coordination meetings. This lack of clarity limited greater opportunities for synergy. IPs 
were also not aware of Takamol’s scope, approaches, and interventions such as training for IPs. 
Finally, several respondents noted that the question of who would receive “credit” for achieving 
results (for example, promoting gender mainstreaming and integration) would emerge as a problem 
among implementers. 
CONCLUSIONS 
At the most basic level, the first step toward achieving an objective is to clearly define what it means 
in a particular context. Both sustainability and synergy are broad concepts that have different 
meanings depending on the program context. In other words, it is difficult to achieve what is not 
clearly defined and understood by the team implementing the strategy. 
Sustainability. Based on the clearest definition provided (see above), sustainability has not been 
achieved. However, this is not unexpected, given the magnitude of the development problem in the 
Jordanian context and the fact that SDO4 has been in existence only since 2013. 
Synergy. The evaluation team defines synergy as the ability of SDO4 and technical offices to identify 
and create opportunities to integrate gender into other sector programs to achieve development 
results more effectively. Interestingly, technical offices identified more opportunities to implement a 
multi-sectoral approach than SDO4 did. This may reflect the fact that SDO4 tended to be more 
inward-looking during the first few years. 
Issues such as gender, whether treated as a DO or a crosscutting theme, confront operational 
challenges within USAID Missions. USAID systems and processes do not often encourage working 
across technical offices or DO teams (e.g., budgeting, reporting, implementation, etc.). Including 
team members from technical offices on the gender team is necessary but not sufficient to create 
synergy. It is also critical to establish clear responsibilities for working across offices, ensure senior 
management support and clarify how to operationalize synergy. Additionally, as the Takamol mid￾term performance evaluation emphasizes that USAID has a crucial coordination role to play, offering 
guidance to IPs about where gender fits into their respective activities and helping identify or foster 
synergies between IPs. Partner coordination meetings provide opportunities for coordination. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
Sustainability and synergy are two distinct concepts that can mean different things in different 
programming contexts. The evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 team clearly define its 
objectives related to sustainability in a way that is appropriate to the gender program. 
By incorporating a stronger focus on strategy (the SDO4 strategy as well as reviewing the DO 
strategies through a gender lens), SDO4 will be better positioned to see the entire portfolio through 
a gender lens and identify priorities from a gender point of view. Particularly in relation to synergy, 
roles and responsibilities for SDO4 team members should be clearly defined and include the 
responsibility to function as gender champions within their technical offices in a more proactive way. 
Expectations regarding individual and team roles for creating synergy should be clearly stated to 
team members and their supervisors. The team should also reach out to technical offices, develop a 
service orientation and build relationships with the technical offices. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 13
Ensure that SDO4 team members are empowered to reach across offices as part of the SDO4 team. 
Provide clear expectations of what this should look like and hold the gender and technical team 
leads accountable for working across sectors. 
The following Takamol mid-term evaluation recommendations related to synergy are also relevant 
for the SDO4 evaluation: 
USAID should provide greater facilitation between Takamol and IPs by inviting them to sector￾specific coordination meetings, and ensure that Takamol’s mandate is well understood by IPs.
“Takamol and USAID should pursue relationships with USAID IPs that have complementary areas of 
implementation, with the objective of maximizing both Takamol’s and the IP’s successes. The synergy 
developed around common goals and interests can result in dynamic results if there is open 
communication, clear roles and responsibilities are outlined, and Takamol can provide added value.” 
In addition, it is important to allow for or facilitate “shared credit” for success so that this does not 
prevent collaboration. While the Mission cannot “double count”, there is no reason that two 
implementers cannot take credit for results that they have both engaged in, as long as the numbers 
are only counted once by USAID. This creates a positive incentive to do more in this area, in an 
environment where gender is a priority. Takamol could also report the numbers but clearly indicate 
that they are being reported by another IP as well, and the narrative could discuss each’s unique role 
in bringing about a particular result. The Mission could categorize these as “shared indicators” and 
ensure that the number is only reported once. 5 
EVALUATION QUESTION 3 
How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the Mission? 
Findings, conclusions, and recommendations for EQ3 are organized under each sub-question below. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 3A
How did USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration impact effectiveness? 
 
5USAID (prepared by MSI), Takamol Mid-Term Performance Evaluation, Draft Report, May 2017 p. 36 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14
FINDINGS 
Respondents voiced strong consensus that 
creating a separate DO, or SDO, elevated the 
importance and visibility of gender, both within 
USAID and with the Government of Jordan. 
This point was widely acknowledged, even 
among those who prefer to address gender as 
a crosscutting issue. 
Opinions were decidedly mixed as to whether 
the Mission should have a separate DO for 
gender in contrast to addressing gender as a 
crosscutting issue. However, a majority of 
SDO4 members preferred maintaining a 
separate DO, while others outside of the 
SDO4 team supported the SDO but were 
concerned that the Mission is not achieving the 
intended results across the portfolio. While all 
individuals in leadership positions consider 
gender a critical issue for achieving 
development results, a significant number 
prefer to address it as a crosscutting issue or 
felt that addressing it as a crosscutting issue 
may be just as effective as addressing it as a 
separate DO. Respondents also noted the lack 
of a clear, overarching strategy and they 
questioned whether there are significant development outcomes. Additionally, several respondents 
noted that having both an SDO4 Team Leader and the Takamol AOR reside within the same 
technical office (in this case, DRG) influenced the direction of the team and activities regarding which 
technical topics to focus on; thus, the tasks of the SDO4 team took on a predominantly DRG focus. 
On the other hand, SDO4 team members identified internal capacity building and training as a key 
success. Others recognized that SDO4 is an experiment of sorts, and suggested the need for more 
time to judge success or failures. 
CONCLUSIONS 
As USAID/Jordan is one of only two USAID missions to have a gender DO, it should be recognized 
for both its commitment to gender and for developing a new approach to addressing gender in the 
portfolio. The elevation of gender in the form of a SDO has played an important role in raising the 
significance and visibility of gender in a context where addressing gender gaps is integral to achieving 
development objectives. At the same time, while USAID encourages integrated programing in 
principle (particularly in strategic planning and in the form of collaboration, learning and adapting), 
many systems and processes (budgeting, reporting, and implementation) do not create an 
environment that encourages or requires USAID staff to work across technical sectors. This creates 
management challenges for any crosscutting development issue, whether it is a DO or addressed as 
a crosscutting issue. The most significant issues facing this DO are related to management and 
implementation, which reflect a set of challenges that can be addressed. It is important to distinguish 
the management and implementation of SDO4 from that of technical offices. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
DO or Crosscutting Issue? The evaluation team recommends that USAID/Jordan maintain a 
separate gender DO through the life of the CDCS. The rationale for this recommendation is that: 1) 
the extent to which gender is a constraint for development in Jordan is compelling, 2) the SDO 
Management and Implementation Challenges
A majority of Mission staff identified the 
management and implementation of the SDO as 
a key challenge. Those challenges include the 
following:
 Lack of clear roles and responsibilities
(and no official gender responsibilities in the 
staff position descriptions/work objectives)
 Lack of clarity regarding the management and 
reporting structure 
 Uncertainty about the extent to which gender 
is a priority for USAID/Jordan 
 Capacity of the SDO4 team (lack of one 
or more dedicated gender experts, competing 
demands, varied experience and expertise by 
SDO4 team members)
 The time that is devoted by SDO4 team 
members to the team
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 15
raises the visibility and importance of gender, 3) the management and implementation problems 
identified are common to any crosscutting theme, whether handled as a stand-alone objective or as a 
crosscutting issue and 4) the management issues represent solvable problems. 
Management and Structure of the SDO4 Team. The following summarizes recommendations 
related to management and structure of the SDO4 team. Table 5 on pages 21-22 summarizes these 
recommendations and identifies key structural questions that emerged and were considered by the 
evaluation team, as well as the rationale behind the recommendation. The evaluation team also 
recommends that the SDO4 Team Leader be permanently housed in the Program Office, because it
is best situated to work across all of the technical offices — something that is essential for the 
success of this crosscutting DO. In addition to its naturally crosscutting view of the program, the 
Program Office has significantly more staff compared to technical offices. Locating the SDO4 Team 
Leader within the Program Office rather than in a particular technical office can mitigate the risk of 
focusing on one technical area too heavily. 
However, it is also critical to ensure sufficient technical expertise to ensure success. A DO that 
focuses on increasing economic growth requires staff with appropriate technical expertise and the 
same is true for SDO4. The team needs at least one dedicated full-time team member and, ideally, a 
full-time administrative support position to effectively implement the DO, including coordination of 
gender initiatives, the provision of support on gender to the other DOs, the organization of training 
and supporting related outreach and communication. In addition, the team should see itself as a 
central coordinating point to access further gender expertise when needed, through Takamol or 
other mechanisms, or by reaching back to resources in USAID/Washington. 
In addition, the evaluation team recommends dividing the SDO4 team into two parts: the 
management team and the advisory team. The management team represents a core group who will 
oversee the SDO on a consistent basis and will be accountable for its success. This group would 
consist of individuals who meet the following criteria: 
 Have the deepest technical expertise related to gender; 
 Have the time and skills to share in the workload; 
 Manage gender activities; 
 Play a leadership role; 
 Have the capacity to both influence and work in partnership with other DO teams; 
 Are highly committed to gender; and 
 Are skilled in building relationships with technical offices across the Mission. 
Membership on the management team may also reflect priority areas. For example, if one priority is 
to improve women’s participation in the formal workforce, ideally at least one member of the EDE 
Office would be part of the management team. This team should also have explicit gender 
responsibilities included in its work objectives or position descriptions. In addition, the time that 
each team member will contribute should be negotiated with each office director or supervisor. 
The advisory team includes staff who play a consultative role and function as gender champions in 
their offices. They participate on the advisory team to learn about gender issues, communicate issues 
to the management team and communicate information back to their home office. They may be 
periodically (but not regularly) be tasked with work. 
The SDO4 team should integrate adaptive management approaches for assessing progress and 
making changes as necessary. Recommendations include: 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16
 Hold a series of strategy sessions (optimally as part of a retreat, but if that is not possible, 
then through a staggered series of planned sessions) following the completion of the 
evaluations to process findings, clarify the strategy, identify priorities and achieve consensus 
on how the team will work. This should result in an initiative to address management and 
operational challenges that have been raised in the evaluation. 
 Once the team’s internal strategy is clarified, hold sessions with technical offices to provide 
an overview of how SDO4 will work moving forward, how key challenges will be addressed, 
and to emphasize what services/ benefits the SDO4 team can provide. 
 Commit to holding a separate portfolio review for SDO4 and support technical teams in 
incorporating gender into their portfolio reviews. 
 Identify periodic check-in points to review progress against priorities. At a minimum, this can 
take the form of a team session at least twice a year to discuss successes, challenges and 
actions for change. This can also integrate accountability for implementing recommendations 
that result from the evaluations. These sessions ideally would take place prior to the 
portfolio review and then key outcomes reported. 
The evaluation team recommends that SDO4 review, update and obtain formal approval for the 
Mission Order (drawing from the draft SDO4 Team Charter). While this was not implemented in 
the Mission for the other DO teams (which now function as technical offices), it remains critical for 
this SDO, which does not operate as a technical office. It is essential to gain clarity and consensus 
around roles and responsibilities with senior leadership and others across the Mission. The finalized 
and approved Mission Order should be subsequently shared with USAID/Jordan more broadly to 
foster an understanding of the role of SDO4 team members and how others are best suited to 
support the team and their gender integration efforts. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 3B
Do the team members receive sufficient support from management to be active members and 
confident gender experts of the DO team and feel empowered to pursue increasing gender 
integration? 
FINDINGS 
A majority of SDO4 team members believe that management supports them on gender integration. 
However, the extent to which gender is a priority to senior management is unclear to Mission staff, 
including members of the SDO4; some noted that it was a high priority while others were unsure. 
SDO4 team members acknowledged that explicit support from Mission leadership regarding gender 
integration would help them feel more empowered. Additionally, some team members requested 
clarification of their role on the SDO4 team and overall objectives of the team. One respondent 
called for the integration of gender responsibilities in position descriptions/work objectives to 
elucidate roles and responsibilities but also create accountability and recognition for the work the 
SDO4 team members undertake in addition to their other official responsibilities. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 17
In particular, several SDO4 team members 
noted that their skills are growing, but 
acknowledged that they are not gender 
experts. SDO4 team members both recognize 
and respect gender expertise in its own right 
and the importance of ensuring that adequate 
skills are mobilized to implement the SDO 
effectively. 
CONCLUSIONS 
All SDO4 team members serve in other 
offices, have primary expertise in other areas 
and serve part-time on the gender team. They 
have successfully focused on deepening their 
own capacity through training. However, the 
gender SDO, like any other DO, requires 
some dedicated staff with expertise to 
implement the strategy and support other 
DOs effectively. Team members must also 
have opportunities to regularly use the skills 
gained from trainings and be accountable for 
their duties as SDO4 team members. 
Leadership support at all levels is a critical ingredient for supporting SDO4 team members and to 
empower the team. At the most senior levels, it is important to communicate gender as a Mission￾wide priority. This will support the team by creating incentives, opportunities and space to work 
with other technical offices. At the technical office level, teams must regularly communicate 
internally about how gender integration affects their larger goals and share achievements and 
challenges towards gender integration. This cannot happen only during annual portfolio reviews, or 
gender integration will remain a “check the box” exercise.
Clarity around roles and responsibilities is also a critical factor for success. Without it, team 
members are unsure of how they can interact and whether they can advocate for gender with 
technical offices. The ability to look outward, build relationships and identify opportunities to 
support technical offices is critical for the success of this crosscutting DO. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evaluation team recommends that senior management (including the Mission Director and 
deputy directors) reinvigorate (or communicate) the Mission’s commitment to SDO4. This can be 
done through conveying gender as a priority in senior management meetings and communicating 
efforts to improve management approaches for implementing SDO4. In addition, the evaluation team 
recommends that the Deputy Mission Director responsible for managing the SDO4 team have a 
regular meeting (e.g., monthly) with the SDO4 team to ensure an effective communication channel is 
available to senior management and vice versa. 
Portfolio reviews should incorporate gender as a crosscutting element and also focus on gender as a 
stand-alone SDO to review progress of the SDO against the larger strategy. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 3C
What has the DO team done well in gender integration and what can be improved? 
Areas for SDO4 Team improvement 
(Cited by Respondents During Interviews)
External to SDO4 Team
 Increased support from leadership
 Broader buy-in of gender integration by 
Mission staff and IPs
Internal to SDO4 Team
 Focused SDO4 Team strategy 
 Clear purpose, roles, and 
responsibilities of SDO4 team
 High-quality gender analysis 
 Increased visibility of SDO4 Team
 Improved communications and 
information sharing
 Service orientation towards technical 
teams
 Strengthened internal gender 
integration capacity of SDO4 team 
members
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18
FINDINGS 
The SDO4 team noted during in-depth interviews that internal capacity building and trainings were 
highly supported and cited these as key successes for the SDO4 team. In addition to standard 
USAID online gender training (101,102 and 103), the SDO4 team facilitated training that received 
positive feedback and worked with the WRE Office to deliver a two-day gender and water training. 
Technical offices were not aware of what 
SDO4 is working on and were generally less 
confident in the expertise available to them 
through the SDO4 team. They said SDO4 
should be more proactive and service 
oriented to provide more support to the 
technical teams. 
The evaluation team also conducted a 
survey of the SDO4 team members, which 
asked them to assess the effectiveness of 
the team across seven dimensions based on 
the PERFORM model (purpose, 
empowerment, relationships and 
communications, flexibility, optimal 
performance, recognition and appreciation, 
and morale).6 Respondents rated each area 
on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 
(strongly agree).The overall results of the 
survey were very positive, with a lowest 
average score of 3.18 (see Table 3). Findings 
from the survey mirror the information resulting from in-depth interviews, with the most positive or 
effective elements of the SDO4 team being opportunities for learning and respect among team 
members (both in the empowerment category). Conversely, the areas that were relatively the 
weakest are support from the organization and senior leadership (recognition and appreciation), 
enthusiasm for working on the team (morale) and clear policies, rules and processes to achieve team 
objectives (empowerment). 
Area Average Score (Scale 
of 1-5)
Respect for other team members 4.27
Learning opportunities 4.27
Conflict management of personalities 4.18
Willingness to contribute to the team 4.09
Commitment to getting the job done on time 4.09
Constructive feedback 4.0
Trust 3.9
 
6
 The survey based on the PERFORM Model is in Annex B. 
TABLE 3: AVERAGE SURVEY SCORES.
Team Effectiveness: Factors for Success
(Cited by Respondents)
 Senior leadership support and engagement
 Clarity of roles and responsibilities of SDO4 
team
 Effective communication and outreach/ a 
proactive approach
 Team leadership and ability to influence 
other technical teams 
 Sufficient capacity to implement the SDO, 
including expertise and time/resources
 Accountability (incorporation of gender 
responsibilities in position 
descriptions/work objectives)
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 19
Area Average Score (Scale 
of 1-5)
Commitment to high standards and results 3.9
Purpose 3.81
Freedom of expression 3.81
Conflict management of ideas 3.81
Recognized accomplishments 3.81
Confidence in team 3.63
Effective problem-solving and decision-making 3.54
Clear policies and rules 3.45
Shared responsibilities 3.45
Enthusiasm for working on team 3.36
Support from organization and senior leadership 3.18
CONCLUSIONS 
The SDO4 team has been focused more internally, for example, building its internal capacities for 
gender integration as a starting point, but has not yet fully focused outward in terms of building 
relationships across programs and identifying priorities to build synergy with other technical teams. 
Figure 3 presents a model to understand three distinct and progressive stages for integration of 
gender in a mission. The evaluation team concludes that USAID/Jordan is somewhere in stage 2, 
having met foundational requirements of gender integration. Annex D includes the Gender 
Management Continuum and rationale for the criteria. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20
FIGURE 3: THE GENDER MANAGEMENT CONTINUUM. 
While the SDO4 team focused on exchanging information, preparing for specific events like portfolio 
reviews and training, there was not adequate focus on managing against the SDO4 strategy, either in 
the form of the SDO4 results framework or across other DOs. SDO4 and other technical offices 
alike displayed a lack of understanding of the overarching strategy. However, the CDCS includes a 
fairly well articulated strategy. 
The Mission is much further along in tackling gender issues and there is recognition that this takes 
continued effort. Initially, during periods of strategy development in 2012 and 2013, a lot of effort 
focused on gender as a SDO, but some of that initial effort and passion dissipated as team members 
were pulled back into daily work and Mission staff changed. Newer Mission staff were not familiar 
with the thinking behind SDO4. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evaluation team recommends that the Mission continue to build and expand on the foundation 
created. Communicate the role of gender in the portfolio and message the specific priorities for 
gender programming. 
The SDO4 team should recognize that, precisely as a crosscutting DO, efforts to look outward by 
reaching out, advocating, communicating, providing services, and demonstrating value-added, are 
critical. The SDO4 team needs to be more proactive in playing this role on an ongoing basis. In 
addition, having adequate and qualified staff are critical for that to happen. 
SDO4 should focus on achieving development results (as represented in the results framework for 
SDO4 and across the other DOs), as is recommended for all DOs. This can be done by reviewing 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 21
the strategy and identifying priorities or by reviewing performance against the larger strategy at least 
twice a year. 
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 
Table 4 on the following page summarizes the recommendations outlined in this section, while Table 
5 provides more detailed comments regarding the recommended management structure for SDO4. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22
Audience Recommendation
Implementation
Status
SDO4 
Team
1. Hold a series of strategy sessions following the 
completion of the evaluations to process evaluation 
findings, clarify the strategy, roles and responsibilities of 
team members, identify priorities and achieve consensus 
on how the team will work. 
2. Review the gender strategy in the CDCS. Use it as a 
guiding reference for gender analysis, project design, 
monitoring and evaluation and implementation. 
3. Review, update and obtain formal approval for the 
Mission Order and share with USAID/Jordan more 
broadly to foster an understanding of the role of SDO4 
team. 
4. Clearly define SDO4 objectives related to sustainability, 
in a way that is appropriate to the gender program. 
5. Clarify and communicate expectations regarding 
individual and team roles for creating synergy to team 
members and their supervisors. 
6. Regularly and proactively communicate the gender 
integration strategy and key priorities to technical offices.
7. Once the team’s internal strategy is clarified, hold 
sessions with technical offices to provide an overview of 
how SDO4 will work moving forward and how key 
challenges will be addressed, and to emphasize what 
services/ benefits the SDO4 team can provide. 
8. Develop a rapport with technical offices and conduct 
more proactive outreach or develop a service 
orientation.
9. Commit to holding a separate portfolio review for SDO4 
and support technical teams in incorporating gender into 
their portfolio reviews.
10. Identify periodic check-in points to review progress 
against priorities. At a minimum, this can take the form 
of a team session at least twice a year to discuss 
successes, challenges, and actions for change (optimally 
just prior to portfolio review). 
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY AUDIENCE.
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 23
Audience Recommendation
Implementation
Status
Mission 
Leadership
1. Maintain a separate gender SDO. 
2. Permanently house SDO4 leadership in the Program Office.
3. Hire or allocate one dedicated full-time SDO4 team member 
with gender expertise.
4. Hire or dedicate a full-time administrative support position 
to effectively implement SDO4. 
5. Create two sub-teams for SDO4: management team and 
advisory team.
6. Highlight gender as a priority in senior management meetings 
and communicate efforts to improve management 
approaches for implementing SDO4. 
7. Conduct regular (e.g., monthly) meetings between Deputy 
Mission Director responsible for managing the SDO4 team 
and the SDO4 management team.
Technical 
Office Leads
1. Technical office leads conduct periodic check-ins (weekly or 
monthly) with their SDO4 team representative to encourage 
two-way communication regarding gender updates. 
The Recommended Management Structure for Gender SDO4 
Core Overarching Recommendations:
1. The team leader position should be permanently located in the Program Office because it 
is best-situated to support/ work across Mission programming, which is critical for gender 
as a crosscutting DO and it builds continuity over time. 
2. Establish a management team within the larger SDO4 team.
3. Hire a full time gender expert in the Program Office to serve on the SDO4 team. 
4. Optimally, provide one full-time administrative assistant for SDO4. 
5. Function as a central repository for accessing gender expertise.
6. Incorporate adaptive management approaches, where possible to revisit and fine-tune the 
structure and approaches (see pages 13 and 14 for detailed recommendations). 
7. Clarify roles and responsibilities in the Mission Order and Team Charter, as appropriate. 
8. Focus on achieving development results, including the results framework for SDO4 and 
across other DOs. 
TABLE 5.1: RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR SDO4.
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 24
SDO4 Issues and Recommendations
Issue: Should team leadership rotate as originally envisioned?
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that the team leader for SDO4 be located 
in the Program Office on a permanent basis in contrast to the original model where leadership 
would rotate across technical offices. 
Why? This is a complex issue and each model has its own advantages and disadvantages. The 
evaluation team carefully considered the feedback received from USAID staff on key issues, an 
identification of key factors for the effective functioning of any team, and an analysis of the 
advantages and disadvantages of each model. On balance, we believe locating team leadership in 
the Program Office is likely to provide the team with the greatest opportunity for success.
Advantages and disadvantages for rotating leadership are summarized below: 
Advantages of Rotating Leadership: 
1. One technical office takes greater ownership and is strongly engaged in gender. 
2. By rotating this leadership role, each of the technical offices will have an opportunity to play 
this role. 
Disadvantages of Rotating Leadership: 
1. Other technical offices may be less engaged with gender when not fulfilling a leadership role. 
2. Opportunities for gender programming may be missed across programs. Even though the team 
has the representation of all technical offices, discussions, interaction, and ideas occur more 
naturally within the hosting office. This point emerged during KIIs, where technical offices outside 
of DRG did not have a strong sense of what the SDO4 team does. In addition, staff noted a 
concern that the hosting technical office would likely “capture” more of the SDO4 team’s focus. 
3. This idea is driven by a principle of rotating leadership rather than considering what office 
and/or individual may be best-suited over the long term to manage the program. 
4. Just as the leader is at the peak of his/her knowledge, insight and learning, and develops a 
rapport with the team, leadership changes. For the same reason this would be a disadvantage for 
other DOs (managed by office directors), it is a disadvantage for SDO4. 
Issue: Where should the AOR for SDO4 activities be located?
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that USAID review the two options 
proposed (below) and determine the best choice. 
Why? The AOR for Takamol is currently located in the DRG office, as was the past Team Leader 
for SDO4. Moving forward, the Team Leader will be located in the Program Office. The key issue 
for any Team Leader is to define the relationship with the AOR because Takamol represents the 
main gender activity that drives SDO4. A key ingredient for the success of SDO4 is to ensure that 
the Team Leader continues to play an important role in influencing how Takamol contributes to 
the overall strategy. Having said this, there may be different options available to the Mission to do 
this, as outlined below, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. 
Option 1: Maintain the AOR in the DRG office, however, ensure that the alternative AOR is the 
SDO4 Team Leader. This model ensures that the team leader has a structural role in managing 
Takamol, albeit as a back-up AOR. It is based on the idea that Takamol has a more natural home 
TABLE 5.2 SDO4 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 25
SDO4 Issues and Recommendations
in the DRG office, because there is an alignment between the types of issues addressed by 
Takamol and issues that are normally addressed in the context of DRG programming 
(participation, engagement, public awareness, human rights, laws and policies). It is also important 
to note that DRG programming is often crosscutting as well. 
Option 2: Move the AOR to the Program Office. In this case, the AOR would be a member of 
the SDO4 “management team” (defined below) and located in the Program Office. This model 
brings the Team Leader and the AOR into more direct and clear structural alignment. 
Issue: How can the SDO4 team function more effectively?
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 team establish a smaller 
management team within the larger SDO4 team. 
Why? This would help the team to function more effectively, with the management team focusing 
on the day-to-day management and implementation of gender-related work and the larger team 
serving as gender champions and providing periodic support to the management team when 
needed. 
Who? The criteria for who should be on each team is identified below, followed by an illustrative 
list of management team members for consideration (based on current membership). 
The evaluation team proposes that individuals on the management team: 
 Are the strongest gender experts available in the Mission 
 Have the time and skills to share in the workload and complete tasks on a regular basis
 Manage gender activities relevant to the strategic priorities of SDO4
 Are able to play a leadership role in the Mission 
 Have the capacity to both influence and work in partnership with other DO teams 
 Are highly committed to gender
 Are skilled in building and maintaining relationships with Technical Offices across the 
Mission
The evaluation team proposes that the individuals in the larger SDO4 team: 
 Are willing to function as gender champions
 Function as a proactive voice on gender in their home office and share information about 
relevant issues back to the SDO4 team 
 Seek to identify opportunities to address gender issues 
 May not have strong skills in gender but have a commitment to learning more
 Are willing to support the management team by performing periodic tasks as needed 
Illustrative Candidates for the Management Team: 
Team Leader
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 26
SDO4 Issues and Recommendations
Deputy Team Leader
AOR for Takamol
Additional Representatives from each Technical Office and Program Office (as guided by criteria; 
in addition more than 1 team member may participate from one office depending on the 
complementary skills/ roles they may bring to the team)
1 Gender Expert (when hired)
1 Administrative Support Specialist
Issue: How can the Mission ensure a channel of communication to senior management?
Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends weekly or monthly meetings between 
SDO4 and the responsible deputy Mission director. 
Why? This would ensure a strong channel of communication to senior management. In addition, 
the evaluation team recommends that the SDO4 team leader organize periodic check-in points 
with senior management (meaning the responsible deputy Mission Director) to discuss what is 
working and not working and make appropriate adjustments. 
For other technical teams, who are responsible for managing a DO or an IR, the office director 
reports to the Deputy Mission Mirector (DMD). This provides an important channel of 
communication to understand senior management priorities and for staff to message key issues to 
senior management. In this case, the evaluation team recommends that the team leader report to 
the Program Office Director. However, at the same time, it is important for the team leader to be 
given sufficient authority and latitude to manage the team, while keeping the director informed of 
major issues. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 27
ANNEX A: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) 
USAID – Special Development Objective #4 
Performance Evaluation 
Statement of Work (SOW) 
INTRODUCTION 
USAID/Jordan requires an external performance evaluation of the role and effectiveness of the 
Gender Special Development Objective team (SDO4). This special development objective was 
created to enhance gender equality and female empowerment across USAID programming. 
BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
In analyzing gender equality and female empowerment in Jordan, the dichotomies are stark: multi￾degreed, well-traveled women of West Amman live side-by-side with women whose male relatives 
rarely allow them to leave home unaccompanied; the Constitution7 mandates equality for all citizens 
while other laws restrict women’s employment options; Jordan lifted its reservation to the 
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women on freedom of movement 
and residence but left male dominance on family matters; statistics show more women than men 
enrolled in university but under 15 percent participate in the workforce due to factors including 
unconducive workplaces, poor transportation options, and pressure to conform to the norm of the 
“good woman” who prioritizes home and family. Newer trends are also disturbing: younger men, 
although afforded a broader world view via the internet, replacing their fathers as even more 
conservative “guardians” of their sisters; one of Jordan’s two shelters for gender-based violence 
victims reporting 913 beneficiaries in 2013, up from 299 in 2007; and educated women battling 
depression, unable to put their intellectual capital to work for lack of “suitable” opportunities.
In 2012, USAID established as part of its 2013-2017 Country Development Cooperation Strategy 
(CDCS) an SDO to enhance gender equality and female empowerment. The purpose of this SDO is 
to pursue more effective investments in gender equality and female empowerment to accelerate 
progress in development. The premise of this SDO is that female empowerment and gender equality 
will be enhanced as changes in discriminatory social norms and practices are promoted, advocacy 
and policy reforms for women’s issues are enhanced, and access to female-centered services are 
expanded. The SDO would support and complement the other DOs through stand-alone results. At 
the same time, strategies to achieve female empowerment and gender equality across sectors will be 
integrated into the other DOs. Through responsiveness to the needs and interests identified by 
Jordanian women, the Mission will reach out to areas outside of Amman to respond to local needs. 
Furthermore, the Mission will support efforts to incorporate identified constraints to gender equality 
and female empowerment into policy discussions and decision-making processes at the national level, 
thus making the Government of Jordan and civil society entities more accountable and responsive to 
women across Jordan. 
To support the SDO, USAID/Jordan contracted out the “Takamol” activity to work with 
communities to raise awareness and promote attitude-shifting dialogue on gender equality while 
supporting partners in civil society and government to make specific improvements in conditions for 
women. Internally, USAID established the Gender DO Team composed of representatives from the 
technical and support offices within the Mission. The Team’s mandate is to help integrate gender 
across USAID’s programming, coordinate efforts within and among the USAID/Jordan portfolio, and 
 
7 The World Bank’s 2013 Country Gender Assessment: Economic Participation, Agency and Access to Justice in 
Jordan; the 2012 Woman and Man in Jordan: A Statistical Portrait, produced by the Jordanian Department of 
Statistics and KVINFO; and USAID 2012 Gender Assessment provide comprehensive compilations of data and analysis of gender trends in 
the law, economy, social life and political participation. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 28
provide advice and programming guidance on gender issues. Each member is viewed as a gender 
advocate and Gender POC within their offices and communicates on a variety of issues to and from 
the Gender Team. To date, the Gender Team has been housed by the Democracy, Rights and 
Governance (DRG) Office; the Gender Team Leader and Takamol AOR are both DRG staff. In an 
effort to rotate leadership and maintain a robust team and portfolio, the leadership of the Gender 
Team was transferred in September 2016 to a staff member from the Program Office; the plan is 
that the leadership of this team will rotate every two years. 
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION 
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and strategic recommendations 
on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach that supports SDO4 
“Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender across USAID 
programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for the future 
of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
OBJECTIVES AND THEORY OF CHANGE 
As articulated above, the premise of the SDO is that as men and women become more accepting of 
concepts of equality and practice these beliefs and as laws further reinforce these concepts, 
economic status of women will be elevated which will in turn have positive effects on family health, 
participation of women in other aspects of household decision-making, more involvement of men in 
domestic and caring roles, and women’s greater participation in community and civic life.
Intermediate results and performance indicators were developed for this SDO. They were kept 
generic and broad in order to enable a variety of Mission programming to contribute to and feed 
into them. 
An activity, Takamol, was designed to both support the Mission’s efforts in terms of capacity building 
of Mission staff and IPs as well as fill in the gaps not addressed through USAID/Jordan’s multifaceted 
portfolio – namely the social dialogue and institutional capacity building components. The Gender 
Team was to provide overall guidance on the gender integration. An AOR was assigned to the 
Takamol activity to manage the day-to-day implementation of the activity and serve as the 
interlocutor with the Gender Team. The Gender SDO Results Framework and indicators are 
presented below. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 29
GENDER SDO RESULTS FRAMEWORK 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
In addressing the stated purpose, the evaluation will explicitly answer the questions stated below. 
EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY: 
1. To what extent has addressing gender gaps contributed to achieving USAID’s goals for 
expanding economic opportunities, increasing citizen participation, improving educational 
outcomes and achieving more sustainable population growth? 
2. Has USAID been able to build sustainable synergies across USAID activities? Which 
interventions (either individually or within a thematic area) have been effective to build 
synergies and have these synergies been maximized? In what ways can they be improved? 
3. How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the Mission? 
a. How did USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration impact 
effectiveness? For example, was creating a separate DO the best approach to achieving 
the desired objectives or are there other more effective approaches. 
b. Do the team members receive sufficient support from mid-level management to be 
active members and confident Gender experts of the DO team and feel empowered to 
pursue increasing gender integration? 
c. What has the DO team done well in gender integration and what can be improved? 
AVAILABLE BACKGROUND MATERIALS 
 USAID/Jordan 2013-2017 CDCS 
 Mission Order on Gender Integration 
 Gender Project Appraisal Document (PAD) 
 Gender Sections from the Annual Operational Plan (OP) and Performance Plan and Report 
(PPR) 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 30
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 
The external evaluation will use quantitative and/or qualitative approaches to assess how effective 
SDO4 was in meeting its objectives and to provide recommendations on how the Mission can 
effectively integrate and mainstream gender into its programming and achieve its development 
objectives over the remainder of the CDCS life (which is being extended to November 2019). 
The evaluation will utilize a participatory approach to answer valuable qualitative questions. It is 
expected that the evaluation will focus primarily on USAID and will draw on other stakeholders as 
appropriate, including USAID IPs, and potentially other key informants such as members of the 
Jordanian public sector entities, civil society organizations, academia and others, to help answer the 
evaluation questions. 
Simultaneously with this evaluation, USAID is undertaking a performance evaluation of the Takamol 
activity to assess its effectiveness in meeting its goals and provide recommendations to help guide 
implementation of the activity over its remaining two years. Since Takamol is the main activity under 
this SDO, it is expected that findings and recommendations from the Takamol evaluation will be 
closely coordinated and feed into the overall SDO assessment, and vice versa. 
EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION 
In order to meet the requirements of team composition, ensure data quality, and contribute to 
building capacity of local evaluation specialists, the following is suggested for team composition: 
1. Team Leader (With relevant experience related to strategy, operations and management 
processes in USAID Missions including within and between technical offices) 
2. Gender Specialist (With relevant gender and programming experience) 
The evaluation team for this evaluation may also need to work closely with the Takamol evaluation 
team; for example, data collection tools and methods could be developed to inform both the 
Takamol evaluation as well as the SDO assessment. At a minimum, it is expected that this evaluation 
team will coordinate closely with the Takamol evaluation team. 
The evaluation team will also be supported by the MESP Evaluation Manager, Senior M&E Specialist 
and Evaluation Assistant. 
PERFORMANCE PERIOD 
The evaluation will be conducted from January 2017 through April 2017 with data collection 
conducted in January and February 2017, and final report submitted by the end of April 2017. 
Logistics for the assessment and evaluation will be provided by MESP. 
DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE 
Deliverable Timeline
MESP finalize SOW, begin desk review of relevant DO4 documents and 
develop work plan January 2017
MESP develop evaluation methodology and tools, finalize work plan and 
submit evaluation design report February 2017
Field Work February 2017
Debriefing presentation for USAID and stakeholders on evaluation findings, 
initial conclusions and recommendations April 2017
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 31
Deliverable Timeline
USAID and Evaluation team collaboration on developing the 
recommendations
 USAID Participation in the team FCR Session
 Meeting/s between the evaluation team and USAID to develop 
actionable recommendations
April 2017
MESP submit draft report April 2017
MESP submit final report April 2017
NOTES:
 The evaluation report will not exceed 30 pages and must adhere to 
USAID’s Evaluation Policy; it must include a table of contents, list of 
acronyms, and executive summary as well as a copy of the SOW 
and data collection instruments;
 The report will address each of the key questions identified in the 
relevant sections of the SOW and any other factors the team 
considers to have a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation;
 The key evaluation questions must be answered, and 
recommendations must be stated in an actionable way with defined 
responsibility for the action;
 Sources of information will be properly identified and listed in an 
annex;
 The assessment and evaluation reports will be published on 
USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse at edec.usaid.gov.
 Upon request from USAID or closure of MESP, both electronic and 
hard copy data files will be transferred to USAID. In the meantime, 
electronic files are on the MESP file and hard copies are 
warehoused at MESP.

USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 33
ANNEX B: EVALUATION DESIGN WITH INSTRUMENTS 
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In 2012, as part of its 2013-2017 Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), USAID 
established a Special Development Objective (SDO) to enhance gender equality and female 
empowerment. The purpose of this SDO is to pursue more effective investments in gender equality 
and female empowerment to accelerate progress in development. The premise of this SDO is that 
female empowerment and gender equality will be enhanced as changes in discriminatory social 
norms and practices are promoted, advocacy and policy reforms for women’s issues are enhanced, 
and access to female-centered services are expanded. The SDO would support and complement the 
other DOs through stand-alone results. At the same time, strategies to achieve female 
empowerment and gender equality across sectors will be integrated into the other DOs. 
To support the SDO, USAID/Jordan contracted out the “Takamol” activity to work with 
communities to raise awareness and promote attitude-shifting dialogue on gender equality while 
supporting partners in civil society and government to make specific improvements in conditions for 
women. 
Internally, USAID established the Gender DO Team composed of representatives from the technical 
and support offices within the Mission. The Team’s mandate is to help integrate gender across 
USAID’s programming, coordinate efforts within and among the USAID/Jordan portfolio, and 
provide advice and programming guidance on gender issues. Each member is viewed as a gender 
advocate and Gender POC within their offices and communicates on a variety of issues to and from 
the Gender Team. To date, the Gender Team has been housed by the Democracy, Rights and 
Governance (DRG) Office; the Gender Team Leader and Takamol AOR are both DRG staff. In an 
effort to rotate leadership and maintain a robust team and portfolio, the leadership of the Gender 
Team was transferred in September 2016 to a staff member from the Program Office; the plan is 
that the leadership of this team will rotate every two years. 
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and strategic recommendations 
on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach that supports SDO4 
“Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender across USAID 
programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for the future 
of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
1. To what extent has addressing gender gaps contributed to achieving USAID’s goals for 
expanding economic opportunities, increasing citizen participation, improving educational 
outcomes and achieving more sustainable population growth? 
2. Has USAID been able to build sustainable synergies across USAID activities? Which 
interventions (either individually or within a thematic area) have been effective to build 
synergies and have these synergies been maximized? In what ways can they be improved? 
3. How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the Mission? 
a. How did USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration 
impact effectiveness? For example, was creating a separate DO the best approach to 
achieving the desired objectives or are there other more effective approaches. 
b. Do the team members receive sufficient support from mid-level management to be 
active members and confident Gender experts of the DO team and feel empowered 
to pursue increasing gender integration? 
c. What has the DO team done well in gender integration and what can be improved? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 34
EVALUATION DESIGN 
UNDERSTANDING OF THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The three evaluation questions focus on three key themes, including: the achievement of program 
outcomes, creating sustainable synergies, and management effectiveness. Below we provide an 
outline of how the evaluation team will capture and operationalize these concepts to answer the 
three evaluation questions. 
MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS 
Given the scope and time available for this evaluation, the Evaluation Team will operationalize efforts 
to address gender gaps and create more gender equitable outcomes by examining effectiveness at 
the program level rather than at an activity-level. This will allow the Team to link efforts to the 
overarching USAID goals referenced in Question 1. The Evaluation Team will consider to what 
extent the Technical Offices are addressing key gender issues as identified in the DO 4 PPRs (FY14-
16) and 2012 Gender Assessment. 
Effectiveness will also be examined through the purpose of the DO 4 Team and the structure of the 
DO itself. The DO 4 Team asserts a twofold purpose in its draft Charter: to oversee any design and 
implement projects directly under the DO (currently the Takamol project); and to work throughout 
the mission to integrate gender equality by working with different technical offices, assisting with 
gender analysis, conducting training, assisting projects, collecting and reporting on indicators. In 
addition to researching the relationships the DO 4 Team has with other offices and teams within the 
mission, the Evaluation Team will consider the support the DO 4 Team receives from the mission, 
particularly regarding gender training, funding, and communications and outreach. 
The structure of DO 4 and its Team will also be looked at, with regards to its current organization, 
any changes made since its inception, and the factors that enable or inhibit gender integration as 
associated with its existing structure. As feasible, it will also be important to gain a better 
understanding of how and to what extent gender was integrated into programming prior to the 
CDCS (2013-2017). 
Roles and responsibilities of mission offices as outlined in the Mission Order: Implementation of 
Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment and the extent to which they are being fulfilled 
will also be used as a measure of effectiveness. 
The evaluation team will operationalize the key concept of synergy by assessing the ability of the
DO4 team to view activities across the entire portfolio and identify opportunities to work across 
programs to maximize impact. 
The concept of sustainability will be assessed based on understanding whether systems, processes, 
policies and behaviors that support gender integration have emerged as a result of DO4 work, and 
are able to exist independently, that is even without any additional DO4 support. 
APPROACH TO ANSWERING THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
This section details the evaluation team’s approach to answering the evaluation questions. 
Combined with document review, the evaluation team will utilize qualitative key informant 
interviews (KIIs)) as their primary data collection approach to capture the opinions and perspectives 
of the different stakeholders, ranging from various offices within USAID/Jordan to implementing 
partners of current activities. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 35
Question 1. To what extent has addressing gender gaps contributed to achieving USAID’s goals for 
expanding economic opportunities, increasing citizen participation, improving educational outcomes 
and achieving more sustainable population growth? 
The team will talk to mission staff in KIIs to ascertain how gender is integrated and assess how 
addressing gender gaps has contributed to achieving USAID/Jordan’s objectives. The team will 
combine both secondary and primary data and include the point of view of different actors across 
technical offices (specifically Democracy, Rights & Governance, Economic Development & Energy, 
Education & Youth, Health as their goals align with those referenced in Question 1) and DO teams, 
and mission leadership. 
Questions will focus on identifying the prevailing gender gaps in the labor market, civic participation, 
education, and health sectors and learning how intentional efforts to mitigate these gaps have led to 
more gender equitable outcomes. The Evaluation Team will also review program level reports such 
as the CDCS (to understand key objectives) in addition to the PMP and PPR. We will also examine 
DO 4: Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Enhanced, 2012 Gender Assessment, and other 
documents to inform our contextual understanding of key gender issues in Jordan. 
Question 2. Has USAID been able to build sustainable synergies across USAID activities? Which 
interventions (either individually or within a thematic area) have been effective to build synergies and 
have these synergies been maximized? In what ways can they be improved? 
By interviewing DO 4 Team members, DO Team Leads and Technical Office Leads, and 
implementing partners in KIIs, the Evaluation Team seeks to learn whether the DO 4 Team has been 
able to share and replicate successful interventions in other activities. 
In particular, this question highlights the need for coordination with the Takamol evaluation team. 
Their SOW includes a similar evaluation question: Has Takamol built synergies with other activities 
across the Mission portfolio? Why or why not? In what ways can they be improved? The SDO4 evaluation 
will focus on whether the DO 4 team has been able to build sustainable synergy across the other 
DO’s. In contrast, the Takamol evaluation team will focus on how the Takamol activity built synergy 
with other activities, and will also identify enablers and barriers to synergy. 
Question 3. How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the 
Mission? 
a. How did USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration impact 
effectiveness? For example, was creating a separate DO the best approach to achieving the 
desired objectives or are there other more effective approaches. 
b. Do the team members receive sufficient support from management to be active members 
and confident Gender experts of the DO team and feel empowered to pursue increasing 
gender integration? 
c. What has the DO team done well in gender integration and what can be improved? 
The team will talk to mission staff in key informant interviews to learn how well the Gender DO 
Team is being supported by the mission, how they interact with other mission staff, and the status of 
gender integration across the mission. The team will also interview a representative from 
USAID/Tanzania (the only other Mission with a stand-alone gender DO), USAID/Egypt (addresses 
gender as a crosscutting issue), and the Regional Bureau’s gender advisor. Youth may also be 
examined within the context of USAID/Jordan’s program to compare the issues related to a 
crosscutting program in contrast to a stand-alone DO. 
The Evaluation Team will also conduct a document review, drawing from the Mission Order: 
Implementation of Policy on Gender Equality and Female Empowerment, draft DO Team 4 Charter, 
and other sources. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 36
The team will utilize all data streams (primary and secondary data) to identify lessons learned and 
opportunities for improvement. Additionally, the SDO4 Evaluation Team will seek to share findings 
with and draw information from the Takamol Evaluation Team, which has a related evaluation 
question: What external factors and challenges influenced Takamol’s performance, and how? 
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
This evaluation will rely on secondary and primary data collection. 
SECONDARY DATA COLLECTION 
The team will review and incorporate into the analysis relevant secondary data sources, following 
are some key pieces of secondary data that the team has considered: 
1. USAID/Jordan CDCS 
2. USAID/Jordan DO 4 Gender Results Framework) 
3. USAID/Jordan’s Performance Management Plan (PMP)
4. Jordan Mission Order: Implementation of Policy on Gender Equality and Female 
Empowerment 
5. Assessment of the Implementation of USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment 
Policy: Annex A, The USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy: A Report 
on Implementation (June 2016, EnCompass) 
6. Assessment of the Implementation of USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment 
Policy: Annex B, Report on Gender Integration in CDCSs 2011-2015 (May 2016, Insight 
Systems Corporation in collaboration with PPL) 
7. Assessment of the Implementation of USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment 
Policy: Annex C, Gender Integration in USAID Appraisal Documents (June 2016, PPL) 
8. Assessment of the Implementation of USAID’s Gender Equality and Female Empowerment 
Policy (Final Report, November 2016, PPL) 
9. DO Team 4 Charter 
10. Special DO 4 Performance Indicator Reference Sheet 
11. Lessons Learned: Gender Policy and DRG Strategy Implementation Assessments (PPL 
webinar slides) 
12. Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Enhanced FY2014 PPR 
13. Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Enhanced FY2015 PPR 
14. Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Enhanced FY2016 PPR 
15. 2012 Gender Assessment USAID/Jordan 
16. Takamol Mid-Term Performance Evaluation Report 
PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION 
For primary data collection, the evaluation team will primarily rely on qualitative research. 
Qualitative Research: Under qualitative research, the evaluation team plans on doing key 
informant interviews (KII). We will explore the use of group discussions where appropriate and as 
time permits. 
Quantitative Research: Under quantitative research, the evaluation team plans to conduct a 
survey with current and former SDO4 team members to ascertain their perceived strengths and 
weaknesses of the SDO4 team. 
Below is a summary of the data collection plan: 
Key informant in-depth interviews will be conducted with the following key informants. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 37
MISSION LEADERSHIP 
 Mission Director 
 Deputy Mission Director 
DO 4 TEAM 
 DO 4 Team Lead (past and current), 
 Mission’s Gender POC (current)
 DO 4 Team members 
 Including representatives from these five DO Team 4 working groups 
 Monitoring & Evaluation 
 Research & Analysis 
 Grants 
 Events & Outreach 
 Program, Policy Implementation, and Integration 
PROGRAM OFFICE 
 Program Office Staff 
TECHNICAL OFFICES 
 Technical Office Leads/POCs 
 Democracy, Rights and Governance 
 Economic Development & Energy 
 Education and Youth 
 Population and Family Health 
 Water Resources and Environment 
 Other Technical Office staff as time permits 
ACTIVITIES/IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS 
We expect the Takamol evaluation to conduct most of the interviews with USAID IPs, however, we 
may interview specific IPs based on our discussions with key stakeholders. 
 Takamol (IREX) 
OTHER USAID MISSIONS 
 USAID/Tanzania 
 Other Missions as recommended by USAID
USAID WASHINGTON 
 Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment 
 The Middle East and Africa Regional Bureau Gender Advisors
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 38
The survey will be conducted with current and former members of the SDO4 team. 
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 
The data collection instruments (Annex III) have been developed to address the research questions 
and tailored to the type of respondent and the data collection approach. 
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS 
Data collected via document review, survey, and KIIs (interview notes) will be analyzed and 
synthesized in a matrix format, allowing the Evaluation Team to conduct a content analysis and 
visually identify key trends and themes. The team will also assess findings by respondent types (for 
example Program Office, Mission Leadership, Technical Teams etc.) to understand and compare the 
perspectives of the different stakeholders. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 39
ANNEX C: GETTING TO ANSWERS 
Program or Project: DO 4 Evaluation 
Team Members: Michelle Adams Matson, Aleksandra Markovich, 
Evaluation 
Questions
Type of 
Answer/
Evidence 
Needed 
(Check one or 
more, as 
appropriate)
Methods for Data Collection, Sampling or Selection Approach, 
(if one is needed)
Data Analysis
Methods
Data Source(s) Method
Effectiveness
To what extent has 
addressing gender gaps 
contributed to achieving 
USAID’s goals for 
expanding economic 
opportunities, increasing 
citizen participation, 
improving educational 
outcomes and achieving 
more sustainable 
population growth?
Yes/No  USAID Staff
 Documents 
 In depth 
interviews
 Document 
Review
 Content 
analysis of 
KIIs 
 Content 
analysis of 
the 
documents
* Description
Comparison
* Explanation
Has USAID been able to 
build sustainable synergies 
across USAID activities? 
* Yes/No  USAID Staff
 Documents
 In depth 
interviews
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 40
Evaluation 
Questions
Type of 
Answer/
Evidence 
Needed 
(Check one or 
more, as 
appropriate)
Methods for Data Collection, Sampling or Selection Approach, 
(if one is needed)
Data Analysis
Methods
Data Source(s) Method
Which interventions 
(either individually or 
within a thematic area) 
have been effective to 
build synergies and have 
these synergies been 
maximized? In what ways 
can they be improved?
 Document 
Review
 Content 
analysis of 
KIIs 
 Content 
analysis of 
document 
review
* Description
Comparison
* Explanation
3. How effective has the 
Gender DO Team been 
in integrating gender 
across the Mission? 
a. How did USAID’s 
approach to managing 
and implementing 
gender integration 
impact effectiveness? 
For example, was 
Yes/No  USAID Staff
 Documents
 In depth 
interviews 
 Document 
Review
 Survey
 Content 
analysis of 
KIIs 
 Content 
analysis of 
document 
review
* Description
Comparison
* Explanation
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 41
Evaluation 
Questions
Type of 
Answer/
Evidence 
Needed 
(Check one or 
more, as 
appropriate)
Methods for Data Collection, Sampling or Selection Approach, 
(if one is needed)
Data Analysis
Methods
Data Source(s) Method
creating a separate DO 
the best approach to 
achieving the desired 
objectives or are there 
other more effective 
approaches. 
b. Do the team 
members receive 
sufficient support 
from mid-level 
management to be 
active members and 
confident Gender 
experts of the DO
team and feel 
empowered to pursue 
increasing gender 
integration?
c. What has the DO 
team done well in 
gender integration 
and what can be 
improved?
 Content 
analysis of 
survey
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 42
Evaluation 
Questions
Type of 
Answer/
Evidence 
Needed 
(Check one or 
more, as 
appropriate)
Methods for Data Collection, Sampling or Selection Approach, 
(if one is needed)
Data Analysis
Methods
Data Source(s) Method
ANNEX D: WORK PLAN 
DESCRIPTION DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE DATES
Planning 
Desk review of project documents  Desk review
 List of evaluation reference 
documents
Team Leader
Evaluation Team
January 25, 2017 –
February 10, 2017
Work plan submitted to USAID for approval  Work plan/schedule Team Leader Evaluation 
Team
February 5, 2017
USAID approves work plan TBD
Design of the evaluation: methodology and tools  Research design report
 Draft instruments in English
Team leader 
Evaluation Team 
February 5, 2017 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 43
DESCRIPTION DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE DATES
USAID approves evaluation research design report TBD
Implementation Phase 
Data Collection Phase 1
Data Collection through key informant interviews 
(KII) 
 KII notes and summary
 Data Review Matrix
Evaluation Team February 5 -13, 
2017
USAID Mid-Point Check-In  Meeting Team Leader Evaluation 
Team 
February 9, 2017
Analysis, De-briefing and Reporting Phase
Initial Data Analysis  KII notes and summary
 Focus group notes 
Team Leader 
Evaluation Team 
February 11-15, 
2017
Debriefing of initial findings with USAID DO 4 
Team
 Presentation Team Leader
Evaluation Team and 
MESP
February 16, 2017
USAID Consultation: Initial findings and actionable 
recommendations
 Presentation Team leader 
Evaluation Team and 
MESP
February 16, 2017 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 44
DESCRIPTION DELIVERABLE RESPONSIBLE DATES
Final data analysis and drafting of the report  FCR Table 
 Draft report 
Team Leader & 
Evaluation Team 
February 19-March
22, 2017
Draft report is submitted  Report Evaluation Team March 23, 2017 
USAID comments on draft evaluation report  Draft report with comments USAID April 10, 2017
Response to the USAID comments and update 
report
 Updated report and response to 
comment table
Team Leader, Evaluation 
Team and MESP
April 13-27, 2017
Final evaluation report incorporating USAID 
comments 
 Final evaluation report MESP, Team Leader and 
Evaluation Team 
April 28, 2017
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 45
ANNEX E: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS 
SDO4 EVALUATION –QUESTIONS FOR DO 4 (GENDER) TEAM 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. 
Do you have any questions at this stage? 
We have a number of questions to ask and want to begin by asking you to tell us about your current 
role in the mission. 
How long have you worked in the mission? 
Do you have gender responsibilities in your position description? 
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. In your area of responsibility, what are the major gender issues? 
2. To what extent do you believe that addressing gender has helped USAID achieve its objectives 
a. Could you tell give us some examples? 
SUSTAINABLE SYNERGIES 
1. What are DO 4 goals related to sustainability? Could you please elaborate on the approach/es 
used to achieve these goals? 
2. What are DO 4 goals in relation to creating synergies across the program? Could you please 
elaborate on the approaches used to achieve these goals? 
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. How effective has the Gender DO Team been in integrating gender across the mission? What 
are some examples? 
a. In your opinion what are the main challenges when it comes to integrating gender 
across the mission? 
2. What is the role of the DO 4 Team in working with other technical offices? Has this role 
remained the same over time or has it changed? IF CHANGED, ASK: Why? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 46
3. What is your role on the DO 4 Team? 
4. Is USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration effective? 
5. Is a separate DO the best approach? 
6. Do you feel you receive adequate information and support from management to be effective? 
7. Do you feel you have the adequate skills to be effective? 
8. Have you attended gender trainings and events? 
9. How well does the Gender DO team operate as a team? Why do you think this is? 
10. How often do you meet? 
11. What do you typically discuss? 
12. What has the DO team done well? What can be improved? Why do you say that? 
13. How are you able to influence decision-making in your teams (home office) and other DOs? 
14. Based on your experience, what are some key lessons learned or changes that need to be made 
in order for DO4 team to be more effective? 
OTHER 
1. Are there any other issues we have not mentioned that you would like to discuss? 
2. Is there anyone else you recommend we interview? 
SDO4 EVALUATION – QUESTIONS FOR TECHNICAL OFFICES 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. 
Do you have any questions at this stage? 
We have a number of questions to ask and want to begin by asking you to tell us about your current 
role in the mission. 
How long have you worked in the mission? 
Do you have gender responsibilities in your position description? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 47
Have you attended gender trainings? If so, what are they? 
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. What are some of the prevailing gender issues (including gaps) in your technical area? 
2. How and to what extent has your technical office made intentional efforts to identify and 
address gender in your programming? What are some examples of successes? 
3. To what extent has addressing gender contributed to or enabled the achievement of your 
objectives? Could you give some examples? 
SUSTAINABLE SYNERGIES 
1. When it comes to integrating gender into your work, are there are any examples of synergies 
between your team and other technical teams, and/or between your team and the DO4 team? If 
so, what are they? Optional if not covered in previous responses 
2. Do you feel gender integration is important and/or relevant to your daily role/work? Why do 
you say that, please elaborate? 
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. Is creating a separate DO for gender the best approach to achieving objectives? 
a. Are there better approaches? 
2. To what extent have you engaged the DO 4 Team for support? 
a. What support did you receive? 
b. What support would you like to receive? 
c. What has the DO 4 Team done well? What can be improved? 
OTHER 
1. Are there any other issues we have not mentioned that you would like to discuss? 
2. Is there anyone else you recommend we interview? 
SDO4 EVALUATION – QUESTIONS FOR MISSION LEADERSHIP 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 48
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. 
Do you have any questions at this stage? 
We have a number of questions to ask and want to begin by asking you to tell us about your current 
role in the mission. 
How long have you worked in the mission? 
Do you have gender responsibilities in your position description? 
Have you attended gender trainings? 
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. What are some of the prevailing gender issues across the mission? 
2. What is your overall appraisal of USAID efforts to address gender gaps? 
a. In your opinion, what has worked? What has not worked? Why do you say that? 
3. How and to what extent has the mission made intentional efforts to identify and address 
gender? What are some examples of successes? 
4. To what extent has addressing gender contributed to or enabled the achievement of mission 
objectives? 
SUSTAINABLE SYNERGIES 
1. Are there are any examples of synergies across the portfolio? If so, what are they? Optional if 
not covered in previous responses 
2. What are the goals related to sustainability? 
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. Is USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration effective?
a. Is a separate DO the best approach? 
2. What has the DO team done well? Why do you say that? 
a. What can be improved? 
OTHER 
1. Are there any other issues we have not mentioned that you would like to discuss? 
2. Is there anyone else you recommend we interview? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 49
SDO4 EVALUATION – QUESTIONS FOR PROGRAM OFFICE 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. 
Do you have any questions at this stage? 
We have a number of questions to ask and want to begin by asking you to tell us about your current 
role in the mission. 
How long have you worked in the mission? 
Do you have gender responsibilities in your position description? 
Have you attended gender trainings? 
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. What are some of the prevailing gender issues across the mission? 
2. What is your overall appraisal of USAID efforts to address gender gaps? 
a. In your opinion, what has worked? What has not worked? Why do you say that? 
3. How and to what extent has your team made intentional efforts to identify and address gender 
in your work? What are some examples of successes? 
4. To what extent has addressing gender contributed to or enabled the achievement of mission 
objectives? 
SUSTAINABLE SYNERGIES 
1. When it comes to integrating gender into your work, are there are any examples of synergies 
across the portfolio? If so, what are they? Optional if not covered in previous responses 
2. Do you feel gender integration is important and/or relevant to your daily role/work? Why do 
you say that, please elaborate? 
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. In your opinion what are the main challenges when it comes to integrating gender across the 
mission? 
2. Is USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration effective? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 50
a. Is a separate DO the best approach? 
3. What is the role of the DO 4 Team in working with the Program Office? Has this role remained 
the same over time or has it changed? IF CHANGED, ASK: Why? 
4. To what extent have you engaged the DO 4 Team for support? 
a. What support did you receive? 
5. What has the DO team done well? Why do you say that? 
a. What can be improved? 
OTHER 
1. Are there any other issues we have not mentioned that you would like to discuss? 
2. Is there anyone else you recommend we interview? 
SDO4 EVALUATION – QUESTIONS FOR TAKAMOL 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. 
Do you have any questions at this stage? 
What is your role in supporting USAID’s DO and technical offices in other sectors?
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. What are some of the prevailing gender issues across the mission? 
2. What is your overall appraisal of USAID efforts to address gender gaps? 
a. In your opinion, what has worked? What has not worked? Why do you say that? 
3. To what extent has addressing gender contributed to or enabled the achievement of mission 
objectives in other sectors? 
SUSTAINABLE SYNERGIES 
1. Is it your role to try to strengthen synergies across USAID’s portfolio? How and what are some 
examples? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 51
2. What are the goals related to sustainability in relation to supporting the mission’s strategy?
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. What is your role in relation to SDO4? 
2. To what extent have you worked with the SDO4 Team? 
3. Have you provided support to the SDO4 Team? USAID/Jordan Technical Offices? Other IPs? 
a. What support did you provide? 
4. In your opinion what are the main challenges when it comes to integrating gender across the 
mission? 
5. Is USAID’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration effective? Is a separate 
DO the best approach? 
OTHER 
1. Are there any other issues we have not mentioned that you would like to discuss? 
2. Who else do you think we should interview? 
SDO4 EVALUATION –QUESTIONS FOR USAID MISSION GENDER POCS 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. Do you have any questions at this stage? 
Tell us about your current role in the mission. 
How long have you worked in the mission? 
Do you have gender responsibilities in your position description? 
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. What is your overall appraisal of efforts to address gender gaps in your Mission? 
a. In your opinion, what has worked? What has not worked? Why do you say that? 
2. How and to what extent has the mission made intentional efforts to identify and address 
gender? What are some examples of successes? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 52
3. To what extent has addressing gender contributed to or enabled the achievement of mission 
objectives? 
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. How does your mission manage and implement gender across the portfolio? What is the 
management structure? 
2. Is your Mission’s approach to managing and implementing gender integration effective?
a. Is a separate DO the best approach? Is addressing gender as a crosscutting issue the 
best approach? 
3. Do you think the Mission/Mission staff afford gender the level of attention it deserves? Why or 
why not? 
4. What do you think the factors of success are? 
5. What has the mission done well? What can be improved? Why do you say that? 
OTHER 
1. Are there any other issues we have not mentioned that you would like to discuss? 
2. Is there anyone else you recommend we interview? 
 
SDO4 EVALUATION –QUESTIONS FOR USAID WASHINGTON GENDER POCS 
INTRODUCTION 
Thank you for speaking to us today and helping us gather information for the evaluation of Special 
Development Objective 4. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide USAID with an analysis and 
strategic recommendations on the effectiveness of the program strategy and the administrative approach 
that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment” in order to mainstream gender 
across USAID programming. The evaluation results will help inform USAID programmatic decisions for 
the future of the SDO and the Gender Team. 
The findings from these interviews will be analyzed in aggregate and nothing you share with us will be 
attributed to you. In case we would like to share a quote from this conversation, we will obtain your 
permission first. Do you have any questions at this stage? 
Tell us about your current role. 
How long have you worked at USAID? With the USAID/Jordan in particular? 
What is your level of involvement with the Jordan Mission and SDO team in particular? 
Do you have gender responsibilities in your position description? 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 53
ACHIEVEMENT 
1. What is your overall appraisal of efforts to address gender gaps in the Middle East region? 
a. In your opinion, what has worked? What has not worked? Why do you say that? 
2. To the best of your knowledge, has USAID/Jordan made intentional efforts to identify and 
address gender? What are some examples of successes? 
3. To the best of your knowledge, to what extent has addressing gender contributed to or enabled 
the achievement of USAID/Jordan’s objectives? 
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 
1. As you know, Jordan has a special DO for gender. What are other missions in the region doing 
in terms of gender integration, particularly in terms of management structure? 
2. Do you think a separate DO for gender is an effective approach to managing and implementing 
gender integration? 
a. Is addressing gender as a crosscutting issue a better approach? 
3. What are the factors of success for successful gender integration in your mind? 
SURVEY FOR SDO4 TEAM 
PURPOSE 
1. Team members do 
not understand or 
agree to the team’s 
purpose, goals and 
objectives.
Team members 
understand very 
well and fully agree 
to the team’s 
purpose, goals and 
objectives.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
EMPOWERMENT 
2. Team members do 
not have confidence 
that the team can 
overcome obstacles 
and achieve its 
objectives.
Team members 
have a high level of 
confidence that the 
team can overcome 
obstacles and 
achieve its 
objectives.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 54
3. Team members do 
not respect one 
another’s skills and 
commitment.
Team members 
respect very highly 
one another’s skills 
and commitment. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
4. The team does not 
have the policies, 
rules and processes 
needed to 
accomplish the 
team’s objectives.
The team has the 
policies, rules and 
processes needed 
to accomplish the 
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 team’s objectives.
5. The team does not 
provide its 
members with 
opportunities to 
grow and learn new 
skills.
The team provides 
its members with 
many opportunities 
to grow and learn 
new skills. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
RELATIONSHIPS AND COMMUNICATION 
6. Team members do 
not express their 
opinions and 
feelings openly and 
directly.
Team members 
express their 
opinions and 
feelings very openly 
and freely.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
7. Team members do 
not provide one 
another with helpful 
reactions.
Team members 
provide one 
another with 
helpful reactions 
and advice.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
8. There is apparently 
very little trust 
among team 
members.
There is apparently 
a high level of trust 
among team 
members. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 55
9. Conflict over ideas 
among team 
members is not 
being managed 
effectively, and it is 
hindering the team’s 
progress.
Conflict over ideas 
among team 
members is being 
managed 
effectively, and it is 
contributing to the 
team’s progress.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
10. Conflict involving 
personalities among 
team members is 
high and it is not 
being managed 
effectively.
Conflict involving 
personalities among 
team members is 
low, but when it 
occurs, it is being 
managed 
effectively.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
FLEXIBILITY 
11. Team members are 
unable or unwilling 
to perform different 
roles and tasks as 
needed.
Team members are 
able and willing to 
perform different 
roles and tasks as 
needed.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
12. The responsibility 
for team 
development and 
leadership is not 
shared by team 
members.
The responsibility 
for team 
development and 
leadership is shared 
widely among team 
members.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
OPTIMAL PERFORMANCE 
13. There is very low 
commitment to high 
standards and 
quality results 
among team 
members.
There is very high 
commitment to 
high standards and 
quality results 
among team 
members.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 56
14. Team members are 
not committed to 
getting the job done 
on time.
Team members are 
very committed to 
getting the job 
done on time. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
15. The team does not 
have effective 
decision-making and 
problem-solving 
processes.
The team has 
effective decision￾making and 
problem-solving 
processes.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION 
16. Team members 
rarely recognize or 
celebrate individual 
and team 
accomplishments.
Team members 
frequently 
recognize or 
celebrate individual 
and team 
accomplishments.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
17. The team receives a 
low level of support 
and appreciation 
from the larger 
organization and 
senior management.
The team receives 
a high level of 
support and 
appreciation from 
the larger 
organization and 
senior 
management.
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
MORALE 
18. Team members are 
not enthusiastic 
about working on 
the team.
Team members are 
very enthusiastic 
about working on 
the team. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 57
ANNEX F: ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES 
MICHELLE ADAMS MATSON – TEAM LEADER 
 Will be responsible for team organization 
 Lead the technical aspects with USAID 
 Lead the preparation of the work plan and evaluation design 
 Lead the design and writing of the field data instrument 
 Identify information gaps and requirements 
 Conduct interviews and focus groups with key-informants 
 Data analysis and integrating the FCRs 
 Deliver the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to USAID 
 Support report writing 
ALEKSANDRA MARKOVICH - GENDER SPECIALIST 
 Contribute to and support preparation of work plan and evaluation design 
 Contribute to and support design and writing of the field data instrument 
 Conduct interviews and focus groups with key-informants 
 Support data analysis and integrating the FCRs 
 Summarize findings 
 Deliver the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to USAID 
 Lead report writing 
USAID EVALUATION SPECIALIST 
 Contribute to and support the development of the evaluation design 
 Support the design of data collection instruments 
 Conduct interviews and focus groups with key–informants 
 Support data analysis 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 58
ANNEX G: GENDER STRATEGY ROADMAP 
CDCS Framework Key Issues to Explore
Strategy Goal, Development Hypothesis and Objectives
Pursing more effective investments in gender and female empowerment will accelerate progress in 
development.
DO1: Broad-based, inclusive Economic Development 
IR 1.1 Private Sector 
Competitiveness increased. 
Women-owned businesses do not have access to the kind of 
collateral that they would need to get a bank loan or information 
on networking and value chain opportunities. However, where 
USAID discusses what they will do about lack of access to finance, 
then women are not mentioned. Indicators are weak, and only 
disaggregate data. Overall, how the gender problem will be 
addressed is not discussed. There is no discussion of gender issues 
in terms of the enabling environment. The strategy does not 
explain how access to finance will be addressed. 
IR 1.2: Workforce 
Development and 
Opportunities for Vulnerable 
Groups Increased, Especially for 
the Poor, Women and Youth.
This IR may be one of the most important priorities for the 
crosscutting gender DO. The IR addresses women in the wording 
of the IR and does a good job of articulating the problem. 
However, it does not convey an overall strategy around how the 
activities will add up to larger results (or a strategic approach). 
This affects the gender strategy when viewed through a gender 
lens, but may also be an issue for workforce development in 
general. The indicators are not sex disaggregated. 
IR 1.3 Management of Energy 
Resources Improved.
No discussion of gender.
IR 1.4: Fiscal Stability and Public 
Financial Management Improved
Issues like containment of the public sector wage bill, phasing out 
of fuel and food subsidies may have implications for women that 
are worth understanding. For example, 49% of employed women 
work in public sector jobs. Is there a way to mitigate those issues 
for women? In addition, USAID provides 50% of the annual 
operating year budget to the GOJ. Conditions precedent should be 
reviewed to ensure that gender is incorporated where it makes 
sense and in alignment with US foreign policy interests. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 59
CDCS Framework Key Issues to Explore
DO 2: Democratic Accountability Strengthened
IR 2.1: Governance Processes 
and Institutions Improved. 
Overall, the strategy focuses on supporting Jordanian-led reforms 
to broaden and strengthen political participation. SDO4 should 
apply this strategic approach as well. The strategy around civil 
society is less clear, there is discussion that the strategy will focus 
on civic initiatives, political processes, rule of law and community 
engagement. For gender as for civil society programs more general, 
the question is how to choose interventions that have broader 
impact.
IR 2.2. Rule of Law 
Strengthened
This section does a good job integrating gender and incorporating 
studies. One weakness is that indicators are not gender-sensitive, 
given the importance of gender issues in this section.
2.3 Civil Society Engagement 
and Effectiveness Increased
The key issue for gender in the context of civil society 
programming is to have an overall strategy for achieving 
outcomes/results. Are there strategic approaches that form 
opportunities to support or strengthen other programs? This is a 
particular opportunity for synergy. Indicators are not gender￾sensitive. 
IR 2.4 Community Cohesion 
Enhanced. Strengthen the 
capacity of local leaders 
(including women and youth) to 
resolve disputes and handle 
grievances.
This is a key area to understand the role of women in addressing 
conflict, resolving disputes, and handling grievances. While some 
indicators will presumably be disaggregated (number of vulnerable 
people with increased access to productive assets is critical to view 
through a gender lens), the gender indicator is not linked to the 
programming described, and should be reconsidered. In addition, 
public perception indicators can easily be affected by externalities 
that have no link to USAID programming. Here, the program 
should define what the gender strategy is, and then select a set of 
indicators that reflect that strategy (or set of activities if only at 
that level). 
DO3: Essential Services to the Public Improved
IR 3.1 Use of Integrated Family 
Planning and Reproductive 
Health Services Increased
While gender is inherently integrated into FP/RH programs, it may 
be useful to focus on a) contextual, cultural factors that affect 
these programs and b) how gender may be integrated in a 
meaningful way into health systems strengthening. The team has 
already done the latter, but that is an area where continued focus 
would be useful from a gender point of view. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 60
CDCS Framework Key Issues to Explore
IR 3.2 Learning Outcomes for 
all Students Improved
The issues around boys' education are a key priority from a gender 
point of view. In addition, it may be important to understand the 
larger political/social/economic context that affects this 
programming. Explore the relationship between trends in boys’ 
education, gender-based violence and increasing conservatism in 
society.
IR 3.3 Accountable, Sustainable 
Management of Water and 
Natural Resources Increased 
Gender is not addressed in this IR. If working at the community 
level, it may be important to understand issues related to how men 
and women have access to and use water in different ways (e.g., 
for the agricultural sector). 
SDO4: Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Enhanced
Overview. The development 
hypothesis: Female 
empowerment and gender 
equality will be enhanced as 
changes in discriminatory social 
norms and practices are 
promoted, advocacy and policy 
reforms for women’s issue are 
enhanced, and access to female￾centered services are expanded. 
SDO4 supports the overarching 
strategic goal of promoting 
equality, will lead to improved 
prosperity, as higher levels of 
female participation in the labor 
force will increase economic 
growth at the macro level and 
household security at the micro 
level. As the economic status of 
women is elevated, there will be 
positive effects on family health, 
participation of women in other 
aspects of household decision￾making and women’s 
participation and gender balance 
in community and civic life. 
Jordan ranks 134 out of 140 on the Gender Gap Index.
IR 4.1 Changes in 
Discriminatory Social Norms 
and Practices 
Promoted/Encouraged
FY 2016 PPR Achievements: What Was Achieved: 1.USAID 
held 350 community meetings and training across a number of
activities in addition to online campaigns to challenge perceptions, 
counter gender-based violence, and highlight role models. 2. 
Training /networking events for women in the energy / engineering 
sectors,
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 61
CDCS Framework Key Issues to Explore
IR 4.2 Advocacy and Policy 
Reforms Enhanced
FY 2016 PPR Achievements: What Was Achieved? 1. Engaged 
parliamentary and CSOs in training and advocacy to encourage the 
use of gender-lens in legislation, policy, and strategy formation. 2. 
USAID supported drafting of 45 policies and laws to promote 
gender equality (e.g., businesses that will allow women to move 
into the formal sector.) 3. Revisions to the Labor code will support 
alternative work arrangements for women. 4. Worked on gender￾based policies, related to Jordan's Equal Futures.
IR 4.3 Access to Women- and 
Girl Centered Services 
Expanded
FY2016 PPR Achievements: USAID used female community 
health workers to reach out to Syrian households and discuss 
family planning with extended family members. Through this 
outreach, USAID reached almost 220,000 women. It is important 
to note that the CDCS envisioned that this would be achieved 
through the other DO’s (e.g. access to finance for women will be 
done through DO1, improved family planning services will be done 
under DO3, etc. It will be important to monitor and continue this 
reporting in the future. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 62
ANNEX H: THE GENDER MANAGEMENT CONTINUUM 
USAID/Jordan is in the process of conducting an evaluation to review the effectiveness of the program 
strategy and the management approach that supports SDO4 “Gender Equality and Female 
Empowerment Enhanced.” As a part of that evaluation, the team developed the gender management 
continuum in order to provide context in terms of what has been accomplished and a potential vision 
around a set of objectives for the future. In addition to the model outlined below, we have summarized 
the rationale behind the model, including how the criteria were derived on page 2. 
Stage 3- Advanced (High Commitment and Adaptive Processes)
1. Relevant tools and resources are readily available and easily accessible to USAID and IP staff. 
2. Staff identify and address gender issues early in strategy and program design; integrate analysis 
and other considerations at various levels of the program cycle; and incorporate gender into 
solicitations and project/activity management. 
3. Staff, at all levels, are highly committed to addressing gender gaps and collaborate effectively to 
achieve development results. 
Stage 1- Founding (Basic Requirements Met)
1. Gender Point of Contact is designated. 
2. Gender analysis is completed for the CDCS and for project designs. 
3. Staff receive gender training and are learning about how gender can strengthen programming. 
4. Key gender issues are reported in the Operational Plan.
Stage 2- Expanding (Deepening Gender Integration)
1. Gender advisors at the mission have deep expertise or alternatively, the gender POC and/or 
team have access to needed gender skills. 
2. Gender analysis is carefully processed and incorporated into strategic planning and project 
design. 
3. Staff are generally aware of the importance of gender and can explain priorities. 
4. Staff can articulate a clear strategy and priorities around gender. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 63
The Gender Management Continuum
Rationale Behind the Criteria
Stage 1 Rationale/ 
Explanation Stage 2 Rationale/Explanation Stage 3 Rationale/Explanation
How Were the Criteria Derived? 
The five criteria reflect the 
requirements outlined in USAID’s 
Gender Equality and Female 
Empowerment Policy.
How Were the Criteria Derived? These 
criteria represent the key issues that emerged in 
KIIs as a part of USAID/Jordan’s evaluation of 
SDO4.
How Were the Criteria Derived? Stage 3 builds on 
the criteria outlined in stage 2 to create a vision around 
a more advanced level of achievement.
Access to Gender 
Resources/Expertise
1. Gender Point 
of Contact is 
designated.
This is a policy 
requirement. 
1. Gender advisors 
at the mission 
have deep 
expertise or 
alternatively, the 
gender POC 
and/or team 
have access to 
needed gender 
skills.
Appropriate gender 
expertise is available to 
Mission staff. Expertise
can be available in a 
variety of ways, either 
through USAID staff (at 
the Mission or in 
USAID/W) or through 
other mechanisms. 
1. Relevant tools and 
resources are 
readily available 
and easily 
accessible to 
USAID and IP staff. 
All stage 2 requirements are 
met and, in addition, tools 
and resources are readily 
available and easily accessible 
to all USAID and IP staff. 
These tools and resources 
may be developed and/or 
tailored for the Mission’s 
context and programming 
requirements.
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 64
The Gender Management Continuum
Rationale Behind the Criteria
Stage 1 Rationale/ 
Explanation Stage 2 Rationale/Explanation Stage 3 Rationale/Explanation
Gender Analysis
2. Gender 
analysis is 
completed 
for the 
CDCS and 
for project 
designs.
This is a policy 
requirement.
2. Gender analysis 
is carefully 
processed and 
incorporated 
into strategic 
planning and 
project design. 
While gender analysis is 
done in stage 1 (meeting 
the basic requirement), 
attaining the next level 
means that analysis is 
considered in a 
thoughtful, intentional, 
and collaborative manner 
and integrated into 
strategy or project 
design. 
2. Staff identify and 
address gender 
issues early in 
strategy and 
program design. In 
addition, analysis is 
integrated at 
various levels of 
the program cycle; 
and incorporated 
systematically into 
solicitations and 
project/activity 
management. 
USAID studies indicate that 
gender integration is 
strongest in earlier stages of 
the program cycle (for 
example, during preparation 
of the CDCS) and weakens as 
Missions move toward the 
preparation of solicitations. 
This criterion not only 
reflects early identification of 
gender issues, but also 
integrates gender at every 
stage of the program cycle, 
including solicitations and in 
project/activity management. 
Staff Skills, Awareness & 
Commitment
3. Staff receive 
gender 
training and 
are learning 
about how 
gender can 
strengthen 
programming. 
This is a policy 
requirement.
3. Staff are 
generally aware 
of the 
importance of 
gender. 
For USAID/Jordan, a 
clear majority of staff 
interviewed were aware 
of the importance of 
gender and noted that 
having a stand-alone 
SDO focused on gender 
was one factor that 
contributed to this 
awareness. 
3. Staff, at all levels, 
are highly 
committed to 
addressing gender 
gaps and 
collaborate 
effectively to 
achieve 
development 
results. 
In this stage, staff move from 
being generally aware to 
being highly committed to 
addressing gender gaps as a 
way to achieve development 
impact. 
USAID.GOV SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 4: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 65
The Gender Management Continuum
Rationale Behind the Criteria
Stage 1 Rationale/ 
Explanation Stage 2 Rationale/Explanation Stage 3 Rationale/Explanation
Strategy and Priorities
4. Key gender 
issues are 
reported in 
the 
Operational 
Plan.
This is a policy 
requirement.
4. Staff can 
articulate a clear 
strategy and 
priorities around 
gender. 
For USAID/Jordan, 
technical staff were 
generally able to identify 
specific gender issues 
within their program, but 
the overarching strategy 
and priorities across 
programming were less 
clear. 
4. Strategies and 
priorities are 
reexamined and 
updated on a 
regular basis as 
needed. 
In addition, there is process 
to adapt as needed (adaptive 
management). 
Management Structure
5. A Mission 
Order on 
gender is 
drafted.
This is a policy 
requirement.
4. An operational/ 
management 
structure is 
clearly 
articulated, 
understood and 
implemented 
throughout the 
Mission. 
Some Missions may have 
a stand-alone DO, while 
others address gender as 
a crosscutting issue. 
While either approach is 
acceptable, it is critical 
for roles, responsibilities, 
and management 
structures to be clear at 
various levels both 
internally for those who 
work on gender and 
other technical staff 
across the Mission. 
5. The management 
structure is 
effective and 
adapts to change 
as needed. 
The management structure is 
not only clear, but is capable 
of adapting to change as 
circumstances require. This 
may include periodic reviews 
and adjustments to ensure 
that gender is addressed in an 
optimal way. 

U.S. Agency for International Development 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 2000