December 2017
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was
prepared independently by AMEX International with the contribution of Nhu-An Tran, Amanda MacArthur, Pratima
Bhuthapuri, and Namita Assi.
EVALUATION OF USAID/INDIA DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVE (DO) 3
Assessing the Relevance, Effectiveness, and Impact of
Public Private Partnerships

EVALUATION OF
USAID/INDIA
DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVE (DO) 3:
ASSESSING THE RELEVANCE, EFFECTIVENESS, AND IMPACT OF
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
December 2017
Monitoring and Evaluation (EVAL-ME) IDIQ, AID-OAA-I-15-00003/AID-386-TO-17-00003
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States
Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ i
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 17
I. Background ............................................................................................................................................. 17
II. Evaluation Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 17
III. Evaluation Questions ............................................................................................................................... 18
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
I. Data collection methods .......................................................................................................................... 19
II. Sampling.................................................................................................................................................. 19
III. Sectoral and geographic coverage........................................................................................................... 20
IV. Limitations............................................................................................................................................... 20
Key Findings......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Evaluation Question 1. Program design: partnership model, STIP approach.................................................... 21
Finding 1. Using a variety of partnership models and approaches allows for a wider range of collaboration and
provides a useful testing ground for tackling the complexity inherent in development....................................21
Finding 2. DO3 partnership models have succeeded in bringing in new implementing partners, especially local
organizations and social enterprises with no previous experience with USAID.................................................22
Finding 3. Co-creation of program is resource-intensive but can result in higher level of ownership,
accountability, and creativity..............................................................................................................................23
Finding 4. Active, respectful, and consistent engagement by USAID leads to a smoother design process........25
Finding 5. Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) is not always integrated at the onset and Theory of Change is not
sufficiently fleshed out when designing activities. .............................................................................................25
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................26
Evaluation Question 2. Program implementation: Cost-efficiency ................................................................... 26
Finding 1. Establishing new partnership platforms means longer start-up time and slower expenditures but
can reap rewards down the line. ........................................................................................................................26
Finding 2. Administrative burden is higher for USAID and for Implementing Organizations when forming new
partnerships........................................................................................................................................................28
Finding 3. DO3 activities have successfully leveraged additional funding from external sources (public and
private)................................................................................................................................................................29
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................30
Evaluation Question 3. Program Implementation: Effectiveness and Sustainability ........................................ 30
Finding 1. Programs falling under DO3 have been effective in meeting program goals and objectives. ...........30
Finding 2. Program effectiveness would be enhanced with increased opportunities for communication across
programs, platforms, and sectors throughout the implementation period. ......................................................31
Finding 3. Providing sufficient resources for program administration is key to program effectiveness. ...........32
Finding 4. Implementing organizations have developed their operational capacity through partnership with
USAID ..................................................................................................................................................................33
Finding 5. There is an opportunity to maximize organizational development and better prepare social
enterprises for operating with more diversified funding and in a more competitive environment. .................34
Finding 6. The Millennium Alliance’s grant selection process is perceived to be cumbersome and complex to
certain grantees, and improvements in communications and outreach may be useful in managing applicants’
expectations........................................................................................................................................................34
Finding 7. Programs where an implementing partner acts as an intermediary with and builds the capacity of
the GOI to support its high priority goals are highly effective............................................................................35
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................35
Evaluation Question 4. Program Impact at the BOP........................................................................................ 35
Finding 1. There is limited evidence that programs and initiatives classified under DO3 are significantly more
scalable or sustainable than traditional USAID programs in creating change for the population at the Bottom
of the Pyramid. ...................................................................................................................................................35
Finding 2: The Millennium Alliance is successful in supporting individual interventions and acting as a proof of
concept, but it is unclear if this support will translate into broader market-based solutions without longer
term support to grantees and/or increased facilitation of financing options. ...................................................36
Finding 3: Most programs have no systematic approach to attracting CSR – practice has been ad-hoc and
opportunistic rather than strategic and integrated into program design and administration...........................36
Finding 4: Early engagement with the Government of India is critical to sustainability and scalability.............37
Finding 5: Gender not consistently or systematically integrated into program implementation - assumption
that targeting female beneficiaries means gender issues are taken into consideration, but there is limited
focus on involving women in program at different levels ..................................................................................37
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................37
Recommendations............................................................................................................................................... 39
I. Program Design ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Recommendation 1. Partnership Approach: shift to a more focused portfolio of partnerships to reduce USAID
management burden and deepen impact ..........................................................................................................39
Recommendation 2. Further enhance MA’s grant selection process and strengthen its capacity for
entrepreneurship development..........................................................................................................................39
Recommendation 3. Integrate entrepreneurship and business strengthening into program design ................40
Recommendation 4. Ensure consistent integration of Theory of Change and M&E into program design.........40
Recommendation 5. Ensure consistent gender integration throughout DO3 activities.....................................40
II. Program Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 41
Recommendation 1: Create intentional opportunities for greater knowledge sharing, virtual, and in-person
networking among DO3 implementing partners, and between DO3 platforms and more traditional programs.
............................................................................................................................................................................41
Recommendation 2: Develop a regular schedule of trainings on USAID policies, procedures, and compliance.
............................................................................................................................................................................41
Recommendation 3: Engage the private sector as pro bono consultants and mentors to build the capacity of
beneficiary social enterprises and implementing partners alike........................................................................41
Recommendation 4: Explore opportunities to fund platform programs that address multiple community￾challenges across USAID sectors.........................................................................................................................42
Recommendation 5: Maximize opportunities for implementing partners and grantees to network with the
GOI and integrate GOI engagement strategies from the beginning of program implementation. ....................42
III. Considerations for the next CDCS............................................................................................................. 42
Recommendation 1: Both the IPP and the MA are valid mechanisms to test innovative partnership and
intervention models and should be continued in future CDCS ..........................................................................42
Recommendation 2: Integrate planning for sustainability from day one and consider longer term funding for
successful initiatives. ..........................................................................................................................................43
Recommendation 3: Actively seek to better understand how implementing partners can provide value to the
Indian private sector and their CSR engagement strategies, especially in relation to the 2% Law. ...................43
Recommendation 4: Continue to foster a culture of innovation and risk-taking across all offices within the
Mission, where staff are incentivized to learn from innovations that do not reach their objective. .................44
Annexes
Annex A: Mini Case Studies of Select DO3 Activities .......................................................................................A-2
Annex B: Evaluation Statement of Work.........................................................................................................A-8
Annex C: Evaluation Matrix ..........................................................................................................................A-16
Annex D: List of Interviewees........................................................................................................................A-18
annex E: Description of Sampled DO3 Activities............................................................................................A-23
Annex F: Gender Integration Country Case Example.....................................................................................A-26
Annex G: Linking Public, Private, and Social sectors Country Case Example ..................................................A-27
Annex H: Data Collection Instruments ..........................................................................................................A-28
ACRONYMS
AOR Agreement Officer Representative
BOP Bottom of the Pyramid
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
DO Development Objective
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FH Family Health
FICCI Federated Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
GOI Government of India
IP Implementing Partner
IPP India Partnership Program
KII Key Informant Interview
MA Millennium Alliance
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MOH Ministry of Health
MOHUA Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
PAD Project Appraisal Document
PMU Project Management Unit
PPP Public Private Partnership
PPR Performance Plan Report
RMNCH+A Reproductive, Maternal, Neo-Natal Child Health & Adolescent
STIP Science, Technology, Innovation and Partnership
TDB Technology Development Board
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) five-year (2012-2017) Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) reflects the transformation of the USAID-India relationship from a
traditional donor-recipient to a peer-to-peer partnership whereby India and the U.S. collaborate to
solve global development challenges together. Development Objective (DO) 3 of the USAID/India
CDCS seeks to impact people’s lives at the base of the economic pyramid (BOP) in India through
Alliances, partnership platforms, and other appropriate mechanisms.
DO3 activities are funded through two main initiatives: the India Partnership Program (IPP) Annual
Program Statement and the Millennium Alliance (MA).1
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, and impact of the
partnership models and approaches that have been implemented by USAID/India since 2012. The DO3
evaluation sought to answer the following four questions:
1. Is USAID’s Science, Technology and Innovation and Partnership (STIP) approach consistent
with the overall objective and the attainment of its DO3 immediate results?
2. To what extent has the intervention been cost effective? What factors are influencing any
particular discrepancies?
3. To what extent are the partnership approach and the interventions resulting from the
innovations identified through IPP 1.0 and MA, contributing towards accelerating improved
development outcomes in health care, child survival clean water and sanitation, education,
clean energy, food security and nutrition?
4. What signs are there of changes associated with target interventions in health care, child
survival, clean water and sanitation, education, clean energy, food security and nutrition, e.g.,
what changes do people living at the bottom of the pyramid and other stakeholders
attribute to the interventions?
METHODOLOGY
The team used quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed methods) to generate findings that are both
generalizable and which are based on a rich level of detail. Primary data were collected through surveys,
key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussion (FGDs). Secondary data were collected
through a desk review of documentation at three levels: (i) the country level (CDCS, DO3 Project
Appraisal Document, Performance Plan Report), (ii) project level (cooperative agreement, quarterly
report, work plan), and (iii) published research level (on development innovations in India, public private
partnerships, and relevant USAID reports—global development alliance, global development lab, etc.).
1 There are few additional activities in the education, forestry, and health areas that were awarded prior to these
two mechanisms but are included under the DO3 portfolio due to their focus on the BOP.
ii
LIMITATIONS
Given the allotted timeframe of three weeks for in-country planning and data collection, most of the
findings in this evaluation are applicable to the sampled activities only and should not be projected to the
broader DO3 portfolio. Where appropriate, the team has highlighted success factors and/or challenges
that may have broader relevance to how USAID/India approaches partnerships and private sector
engagement.
FINDINGS
EVALUATION QUESTION 1. PROGRAM DESIGN: PARTNERSHIP MODEL, STIP APPROACH
Finding 1. Using a variety of partnership models and approaches allows for a wider range of
collaboration and provides a useful testing ground for tackling the complexity inherent in
development.
Broadly, the partnership models utilized by the sampled organizations under DO3 can be classified into
five general models/approaches (see Table below). Each model enabled USAID and its implementing
partners to test and scale up innovations or creates an ecosystem for nurturing those innovations. The
innovation grant model, as represented by the Millennium Alliance under FICCI, is the most significant of
these models both in terms of the size of USAID investment and the number of social enterprises
supported. Established as a risk-taking platform, the MA has become an important player in the impact
investment space and has grown beyond a program to become institutionalized within FICCI.
The other four models fall under the IPP funding mechanism, which entails a co-creation process and a
1-to-1 cost-sharing between USAID and the implementing organization. While the design process is
different, their operating structure is similar to what one would see in a traditional program. Of these
models, the innovation ecosystem (#2) and the innovation capability (#4) models have the highest
potential to move beyond being a time-bound project.
Typology of DO3 Partnership Approaches
Model/Approach Objective Key characteristics Representative
Implementing
Organization
1. Platform for funding
development solutions
through innovation
grants
Innovation testing, scale￾up, and transfer
Open competition,
short-term funding
Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce
and Industry (FICCI)
2. Platform for building
market-based
innovation
ecosystem
Market development,
entrepreneurship,
investment facilitation,
enabling policy
environment
Tailored capacity
building, adaptive
management approach,
labor and time intensive
SELCO Foundation,
Global Social Benefits
Institute (GSBI) at Santa
Clara University/New
Ventures, IPE Global
3. Direct
implementation with
NGO/private start-up
Replicate and/or expand
an existing intervention,
solution
Target at-risk/
marginalized
communities and
geographies
WaterHealth, Skymet
iii
Model/Approach Objective Key characteristics Representative
Implementing
Organization
4. Facilitating public
sector innovation
though intellectual
capital
Provide technical
assistance and value
addition to government
Time-bound project
based intervention, task￾specific, milestone￾driven
KPMG Project
Management Unit (PMU),
Solidarity and Action
Against the HIV Infection
in India (SAATHII)
5. Platform for promoting
innovation capability
Expand capabilities of local
actors to test, implement,
and advocate for
innovation
Intervention driven,
time-bound intervention
Impact Foundation
(Dasra), Center for
Knowledge Societies
(CKS), Center for Micro
Finance (CMF), Ashoka
Trust for Research in
Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE)
Finding 2. DO3 partnership models have succeeded in bringing in new implementing partners,
especially local organizations and social enterprises with no previous experience with USAID.
Of the five approaches cited above, the innovation grants model (MA) through the multiple grant rounds
brought in a substantial number of new actors into the development sphere, particularly
social enterprises and start-ups that would not have appeared on USAID’s radar screen otherwise. The
innovation ecosystem model was smaller in scale in terms of the number of social enterprises included
in the platform but the level of intervention tends to be broader and deeper. The direct implementation
model enabled USAID to work directly with a private sector entity to roll-out and test innovative
solutions. The innovation capability model brought in new local organizations as prime partners
and through them, expanded the circle of non-profit organizations that benefited from USAID support
(both through capacity building and financial support).
Out of the 27 organizations the team interviewed, only four (4) have benefited from USAID support in
the past and three (IPE Global, KPMG, CMF sub-awardee Room to Read) have had a direct contractual
relationship with USAID. For the majority of the sample, this was the first time they have worked with
USAID. For many (8 out of the 12 prime implementing partners), this was the first time serving as a
prime implementing partner.
Finding 3. Co-creation of program is resource-intensive but can result in higher level of ownership,
accountability, and creativity.
Unlike traditional USAID approaches to programming, co-creation requires more upfront
investment of labor and time by USAID and implementing partners. For Partnering approaches that
entailed setting up of a platform (models #2, 4 and 5), the partners interviewed indicated that the co￾creation/design process took at least one year to complete from initial application to award. The co￾creation process for programs managed by WaterHealth and Skymet was more streamlined since it
entailed direct implementation (model #3), hence the time from application to award averaged 6
months.
The overall impression of the co-creation process was generally positive:
 For SAATHII, the co-creation process with USAID helped the organization to realize the
benefits of expanding its presence and capability in Public Private Partnership (PPP).
iv
SAATHII appreciated the different perspective provided by USAID, and felt that the co-creation
process helped to push the organization outside of its “comfort zone” and ultimately enabled
them to design a more innovative program.
 CMF and Tata Trust felt that USAID brought important experience to the table and held the
same optics on outcome and development objectives. For CMF, USAID was seen not just as a
funding partner but a knowledge and funding partner.
 For IPE Global, USAID was willing to allow PAHAL to develop a platform where it could test
different business models to expand private primary healthcare to the urban poor. The
organization also felt that there was sufficient flexibility in the platform to engage and
mobilize new partners.
 For Dasra, working with USAID enabled the organization to play a new role of intermediary
rather than implementer, where the goal is to build an ecosystem to help build understanding of
issues related to adolescent health and strengthen non-profits that work in that area.
Finding 4. Active, respectful, and consistent engagement by USAID leads to a smoother design
process.
Organizations interviewed all noted that the AOR plays a central role in the co-creation/design process
since s/he set the tone for the process and can influence the dynamics of the discussion. Key success
factors cited by partners include:
 Nature of collaboration – AORs that give the partner equal standing and refrain from taking
the lead in the design process will enhance the co-ownership of the program and better results
down the line.
 Level of responsiveness – timely response from the AOR on requests and/or clarification
questions will not only avoid significant delays in the design process but also minimize the level
of frustration among partners.
 Technical consistency – more consistent and constructive feedback during design process
can pave the way for smoother implementation.
 Staff continuity—having the same AOR or primary contact at USAID was beneficial to most
partners in navigating the bureaucracy, especially grantees with no or limited prior USAID
experience.
Finding 5. Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) is not always integrated at the onset and Theory of Change
is not sufficiently fleshed out when designing activities.
Among the 12 sampled projects, only one project, IPE Global’s PAHAL, had a theory of change
integrated into its design, and only 3 projects had developed a log frame/results framework at the onset
of the program. For the KPMG PMU, its agreement was designed around milestones and there was
detailed reporting of outcomes and impact around each of the milestone, just not in the traditional
USAID log frame. The remaining 6 projects developed a M&E framework during the first year of
implementation and reported regularly on these indicators. While all partners have received technical
assistance and training on M&E from USAID and deem the support to be useful, many also indicated that
continuous support on data collection and analysis throughout program implementation is
also needed.
FICCI acknowledged that the MA platform lacked a structured M&E process in the initial rounds. Part of
the reason was the lack of funding for administrative costs for FICCI and the lack of technical expertise.
Eventually a local firm TTC was hired as a sub-awardee in 2016 to manage the M&E component.
v
Conclusion
The STIP approach appears to be consistent with the objective and attainment of DO3 results. By
implementing and testing a variety of partnership models and platforms, USAID/India has successfully
increased its engagement with the private sector while driving forward its development priorities in
India and potentially in other regions. Key success aspects include increased localization of programs and
efforts to test innovations that could be scaled in other geographies. In addition, the co-creation process
and active collaboration with local implementers enhances local ownership and accountability, and
results in more realistic and responsive programming for local developmental challenges. An important
improvement to be addressed moving forward includes a more robust monitoring and evaluation
system.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: COST-EFFICIENCY
A review of the formal agreements for the 12 implementing partners sampled for the evaluation showed
that there was no standard budget structure for activities under DO3. Some budgets are broken
into categories like personnel, direct costs, and ODCs while others are broken down by milestones.
Since each partnership was designed and negotiated collaboratively, the budget was structured to align
with the nature of the project activities and to provide more flexibility to the partner. While this makes
sense from a technical and contracting level, it is not conducive for evaluation purposes since it is
difficult to make a comparative analysis about cost-effectiveness based on metrics like
overhead costs or cost per beneficiary. The team used three qualitative metrics as proxies for
addressing the questions of cost-efficiency: (i) start-up time and program expenditures; (ii) administrative
burden; and (iii) ability to leverage external funding.
Finding 1. Establishing new partnership platforms means longer start-up time and slower
expenditures but can reap rewards down the line.
For new platforms, a formation period is critical and a longer runway (more than 5 years) is needed to
achieve impact. In this regard, the majority of the five models evaluated, except for the direct
implementation (WaterHealth, Skymet) and the KPMG PMU, took at least one year to have some
concrete measurable results. For agreements that are written broadly, significant groundwork needs to
be done at the outset to collaborate with the government to identify the specific activity areas
(SAATHII), gather the supporting evidence through research (Dasra, ATREE), and conduct market
research and build relationships with the relevant market actors (PAHAL, SELCO, GSBI/New Venture).
On the operational side, innovation grant platforms like the Millennium Alliance have to set up managing
structures (e.g. the Strategic Advisory Committee), the rules and policies for grant selection, grant
management, and grant monitoring. Innovation capability models like CMF and READ Alliance also went
through the same process but also faced additional challenges as new USAID partners since they need
more upfront time to establish the required project management infrastructure.
The Mission’s PPR for FY16 reported that the actual obligation was 27% compared to a target of 55%,
with $29.3 million obligated out of the targeted $110 million. The primary reason for this discrepancy
was due to delays in local awards due to the time required in co-designing and the lack of local
partners' capacity.
Using obligation level and expenditures as metrics can distract from the potential impact that these new
platforms can achieve, and the capacity building that local organizations have gained from their
partnership with USAID (see findings 2 and 3 below). Partners mentioned that USAID policies and
vi
procedures provide the structure to train more of their staff and to instill the importance of good
financial and program management practices.
Finding 2. Administrative burden is higher for USAID and for Implementing Organizations when
forming new partnerships.
Given the capacity issue of local partner organizations, the administrative burden on USAID staff has
been greater than with traditional programs. Traditional programs tend to be more directed and
structured whereas the new partnership models under DO3 require collaboration and co￾creation at every stage, from design to implementation to M&E.
Implementing organizations also face a great level of administrative requirements with USAID than they
are usually accustomed to. Nonetheless, most partners interviewed did not see these reporting
requirements as burdensome, though a few did mention that the timeline is not always appropriate to
program/project implementation realities. Moreover, USAID requirements on impact
measurement are seen as beneficial beyond the USAID-funded program/project, even if it takes
time for new implementers (especially from private sector) to understand benefit, and require more
technical support and handholding on the part of USAID.
Finding 3. DO3 activities have successfully leveraged additional funding from external sources (public
and private).
While most partners organizations do not have a concrete strategy for attracting external funding, they
all agree that the partnership with USAID has helped to open doors. To date, most of the leveraged
funding has been opportunistic so there is potential to harness and unlock additional private sector
investments in the future. Overall, the leverage ratio for the sampled activities are about 2 to 1,
with a few exceeding 5 to 1 (MA, KPMG PMU, GSBI/New Ventures, SELCO).
Conclusion
Due to the diversity of approaches, sectors, and scale of activities, it is not possible to assess the cost￾effectiveness of one model relative to the others. The team also did not have sufficient time and
resources to determine whether the partnership model is more cost-effective than traditional USAID
programming. On the one hand, working with new partners entails a greater level of administrative
burden. On the other hand, these partnerships were able to bring new sources of funding that would
not have been part of the picture otherwise. Over time, the upfront investment in capacity building for
local organizations and strengthening their ability to raise funds would result in a more self-sustaining
ecosystem than if USAID were to continue working predominantly with international organizations.
EVALUATION QUESTION 3. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Finding 1. Programs falling under DO3 have been effective in meeting program goals and objectives.
Though the scope of this activity did not include an assessment of non-DO3 programs for a direct
comparison, a review of the FY16 Performance Plan Report and individual program progress reports
show that programs under the DO3 umbrella have consistently reached or exceeded their
programmatic targets. Overall, DO3 sampled activities exceeded their targets by an average of 71%.
Three primary factors stand out as contributing to program effectiveness:
 Nearly all implementing partners are Indian organizations with close ties to the communities
in which they operate, reducing barriers to trust.
vii
 The ability to leverage additional funds due to the legitimacy conveyed through the
USAID partnership.
 In some cases, a higher than anticipated level of buy-in from the local or national
government contributed to increased effectiveness.
Finding 2. Program effectiveness would be enhanced with increased opportunities for communication
across programs, platforms, and sectors throughout the implementation period.
Effectiveness would be improved with enhanced mechanisms for communication across programs and
internally for programs with multiple partners. A more intentional knowledge management
structure would improve overall program effectiveness by reducing duplication of effort and minimizing
learning curves, while simultaneously creating opportunities for innovative thinking and out-of-the-box
partnerships.
Most implementing partners interviewed appreciated the networking opportunity provided by the
partners meeting. However, the large number of participants during these meetings can make it difficult
to engage in meaningful dialogue and technical discussions. Creating additional opportunities for in￾person networking would further enhance the ability of programs to maximize innovative approaches,
enabling learning from diverse actors in different sectors and creating the relationships that can
lead to formal partnerships.
Although USAID excels at bringing together diverse actors at the macro-level, as is the case with the
Millennium Alliance funding partners, there are currently limited examples of linkages being
created across implementing partners – especially those operating under different technical
offices. There is significant opportunity, as noted by partners such as SELCO, SAATHI, and CKS, to
share lessons learned and encourage cross-sector partnerships.
Assembling MA grantees into learning cohorts, grouping them according to stages of organizational
development, sectors, or localities, present opportunities to discover and exploit synergies, thus
improving program effectiveness while concurrently creating a network of socially-minded Indian
enterprises.
Finding 3. Providing sufficient resources for program administration is key to program effectiveness.
The Millennium Alliance presents a clear and strong case for the importance of allocating sufficient
resources for program administration. Through the first two grant rounds, no financial resources
were allocated to support FICCI’s administration systems and processes. The direct results included:
 slow grant distribution process,
 limited MEL activities, and
 frustration amongst the grantees that were interviewed regarding the process.
Once resources were allocated by the funding partners (approximately 10%), FICCI was able to increase
its staffing level and to enhance the capacity of these staff to manage the program, resulting in improved
efficiency and program impact.
Programs whose model involved increasing the innovative capability of sub-partners (Dasra, CKS,
ATREE, and CMF) also experienced administrative challenges. For example, CKS READ Alliance spent
significant time and resources to ensure that its smaller sub-grantee NGOs were able to meet the
required level of compliance. In fact, one sub-grantee had to be dropped from the program due to its
inability to conform with the standard. As a research project, ATREE remarked that the reporting
viii
requirements did not necessarily match the nature or timeline of their research activities, so at time the
reporting can become a tedious exercise.
Finding 4. Implementing organizations have developed their operational capacity through partnership
with USAID
USAID/India has been successful, especially with regards to programs falling under the IPP, in supporting
the capacity development of implementing partners and their sub-awardees. Each organization
interviewed noted that one of the key benefits of working with USAID is the direct support provided by
the Agency to build the organization’s capacity in Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
(ME&L), especially with regards to understanding and developing key tools and processes, such as logical
frameworks and improved reporting standards. Organizations also noted that USAID’s requirements
with regards to financial management and reporting, while challenging to learn initially, are ultimately
highly beneficial to improved organizational management and ultimately in enabling them to access
additional sources of funding – fueling both effectiveness and sustainability.
In addition to the development of organizational capacity, several implementing partners have
expanded into new areas of operation as a direct result of their USAID partnership. This
type of diversification at the organizational level, especially for highly successful implementers, should
not be overlooked as a significant impact of DO3, especially with regards to continued efforts to localize
implementation partners.
Finding 5. There is an opportunity to maximize organizational development and better prepare social
enterprises for operating with more diversified funding and in a more competitive environment.
Training and capacity building related to USAID policies and procedures is critical for successful program
administration. However, for longer-term sustainability, most implementing partners will need additional
support around organizational operations such as financial modeling, marketing and fundraising, and
strategic and business planning. This level of capacity building will be especially critical as USAID moves
beyond direct funding, and organizations must explore diverse funding avenues with the private sector
and other donors.
Social enterprises receiving grants under the MA also consistently noted that they would benefit from
additional capacity building and, more importantly, mentorship from experienced business people. While
grantees can proactively seek out mentorship, there is no systemic process within the MA to link
grantees to this type of support. In working with start-ups and growing businesses, especially social
enterprises, structured opportunities for technical assistance and mentorship should be built into the
program.
Finding 6. The Millennium Alliance’s grant selection process is perceived to be cumbersome and
complex to certain grantees, and improvements in communications and outreach may be useful in
managing applicants’ expectations.
The Millennium Alliance has been successful in seeding local and market-based innovations for
developmental challenges and is viewed by many as an important platform for supporting social
enterprises in India. Through the multiple rounds of grants, FICCI and the MA’s funding partners,
particularly USAID, have been pro-active in learning, adapting, and tweaking its grantmaking approach.
Nevertheless, grantees interviewed indicated that a number of aspects can be further improved:
 The lack of information about the amount of grant funding available for each sector can be
discouraging to applicants.
ix
 The absence of a constructive feedback loop to unsuccessful applicants, especially to those who
were invited to submit a full proposal or to a pitching session, as to why their proposed activity
was not selected misses an opportunity to broaden the program’s impact beyond successful
applicants.
 There is unrealistic expectation that true impact at the BOP can be achieved within the 12 to
18-month implementation timeframe of the grant.
 Most grantees would benefit from the opportunity for interim funding and/or direct assistance in
seeking private investment opportunities.
 The grants administration process is overly complex and disbursement of funding can take too
long, especially considering the highly dynamic environment in which many early stage social
enterprises operate.
Finding 7. Programs where an implementing partner acts as an intermediary with and builds the
capacity of the GOI to support its high priority goals are highly effective.
Programs that are demand-driven are more effective and have a greater potential for sustainability. Two
of the programs that have the most significant successes include the Technical Assistance to the
Government of India for Swachh Bharat Mission implemented by KPMG operating as a Program
Management Unit (PMU), and the Promoting Public Private Partnership Stewardship for RMNCH+A Project,
implemented by SAATHI.
Both programs are designed to provide the Government of India, at the national and local levels, with
the tools it needs to successfully implement high profile initiatives in WASH and health system
strengthening respectively. The SAATHI program assisted in developing technology and capacity
solutions for the Ministry of Health that can ultimately be rolled out at the national level, and across
both private and public health systems, all for a modest investment of US$300,000. Both these programs
also represent a high degree of flexibility to respond to GOI needs as they arise. The sustainability of
both initiatives, which cannot be determined at this point in time, is predicated on the assumption that
the GOI will continue to utilize the systems and processes following the end of the program
implementation period.
Conclusion
As a whole, DO3 implementing partners in the sample have effectively implemented their proposed
activities and have met or exceeded their performance targets. Key success factors for their
effectiveness are (i) the capacity building provided by USAID in program administration and financial
management, (ii) the partner’s presence in the local communities in which project activities are being
rolled out; and (iii) the partner’s ability to build relationship with and respond to GOI interests and
needs. Improvements are needed in the areas of knowledge management and communications, cross￾platform and cross-sectoral linkages, and organizational development, to further amplify the effectiveness
of these programs.
EVALUATION QUESTION 4. PROGRAM IMPACT AT THE BOP
Finding 1. There is limited evidence that programs and initiatives classified under DO3 are significantly
more scalable or sustainable than traditional USAID programs in creating change for the population at
the Bottom of the Pyramid.
For most programs reviewed under this evaluation, it is too early to determine if there will be long-term
x
impact on their target populations as a result of the interventions or through the market-based solutions
they put forth. Understanding adoption of new practices over time and the resulting behavior change
will require a longer-time horizon and more rigorous research methods. For Millennium Alliance
grantees, the short-term nature of the grant and the modest funding amount pose challenges in terms of
attribution. Likewise, the lack of a Theory of Change for the majority of the sampled programs also
makes it more challenging to measure impact.
Challenges facing the BOP tend to be systemic. However, the sampled DO3 programs remain, for the
most part, siloed in that they seek to address one specific development challenge. For instance, targeting
Early Grade Reading simply through a program that improves teachers’ capacity and provides additional
resources at the school level may overlook other issues impacting children’s ability to learn – such as
poor nutrition and limited school infrastructure. The majority of the sampled programs did not adopt a
truly cross-sectoral approach to development.
Several of the sampled implementing partners and MA grantees noted that macro-economic issues, such
as demonetization, had a disproportionately negative impact on their success. For initiatives that are
seeking market-based solutions directed at the poor, demonetization was an especially significant and
unanticipated challenge. The resiliency, or lack thereof, of BOP populations should be taken into account
when assessing program impact. Similarly, for agriculture programs, the volatility of climate systems has
an impact on BOP farmers – especially those that rely on rain-fed agriculture.
Finding 2: The Millennium Alliance is successful in supporting individual interventions and acting as a
proof of concept, but it is unclear if this support will translate into broader market-based solutions
without longer term support to grantees and/or increased facilitation of financing options.
While the legitimacy inferred as a Millennium Alliance grantee helped social enterprises to leverage over
$5 million in additional resources across Rounds 1 and 2, it is unclear how this will translate into long￾term scalability for most of the grantees. It is unclear from available documentation what the breakdown
of these funds are across additional grant funding or debt or equity investment, calling into question the
sustainability of the enterprises without continued grant funding – a challenge for many social
enterprises globally.
Finding 3: Most programs have no systematic approach to attracting CSR – practice has been ad-hoc
and opportunistic rather than strategic and integrated into program design and administration.
Engaging with the private sector is critical to long-term sustainability for many social impact initiatives as
donor funds continue to be reduced. The 2% CSR requirement in India2 provides a prime avenue to
engage the private sector, however, there is no existing strategy to do so in any formal way. Dasra, who
counts over 40 funders as part of its Giving Circle, stated that it preferred to work with family
foundations and private trusts. Even those programs with the direct mandate to engage the private
sector did so on a primarily ad hoc basis or based on existing relationships. For most implementing
partners, especially local NGOs, this is not a sustainable approach to seeking additional support and
funding. Many partners recognize that the number of companies that fall under the CSR requirements is
large but philanthropy remains relatively “new” in India and for most corporations, and limited
enforcement of the rule means companies have little incentives to proactively seek out organizations
2
In April 2014, a Companies law was enacted whereby businesses with annual revenues of more than INR 10
billion rupees (US$ 131 million) must give away 2% of their net profit to charity. Areas for investments include
education, poverty, gender equality, and hunger.
xi
with funding needs.
Finding 4: Early engagement with the Government of India is critical to sustainability and scalability.
For most DO3 programs, engaging with and getting the buy-in of the Indian Government at either the
national, state, or even local level will be critical to continued impact and scalability. Except for those
programs in which engagement with the government is integral to program implementation (SAATHI,
WaterHealth, KPMG PMU) and design, there is little formal strategy to engage the GOI at any level.
This is most evident with regards to the two initiatives targeting Early Grade Reading at government
schools. For the most part, interventions are focused at the individual school level, and it is unclear how
uptake of the interventions will be encouraged more broadly. It is anticipated that schools and
communities will see the benefit of the interventions and take ownership themselves or that the state
government will adopt the practices. However, there is no clear strategy to drive forward this goal.
Finding 5: Gender not consistently or systematically integrated into program implementation -
assumption that targeting female beneficiaries means gender issues are taken into consideration, but
there is limited focus on involving women in program at different levels
Gender inclusion is a key component across all programs surveyed. However, this does not necessarily
translate into a true gender integration strategy. Most programs continue to focus primarily on output￾based indicators with regards to gender and do not assess the behavior change required for true
integration which generally requires a more intentional approach and one that engages males in active
behavior change.
 It is a global challenge for female entrepreneurs to access private investment funding. USAID is
well-placed in India to structure programming in such a way to encourage women
entrepreneur’s improved access to investment opportunities. However, the two programs that
are best placed to do so, the Energy Access Investment Readiness Program and the Millennium
Alliance, do not have specific metrics regarding female entrepreneurs and their inclusion in the
programs. Rather their gender-related targets focus on beneficiary populations.
 Though WaterHealth noted that women-run WaterHealth Centers are on average better
administered than those run by men, there is no clear strategy for engaging more women in this
role, nor are there corresponding impact indicators. Though these water centers have shown
themselves to be cleaner and better run, there is no formal effort to recruit and empower more
women into these positions and only 30-35% of the WaterHealth Centers in the program
geography of Bangalore are operated by women.
Conclusion
It is premature at this point to determine the type of impact that the sampled DO3 activities have in
affecting behavior change and improving development outcomes at the BOP. More rigorous research
methods and integration of the Theory of Change by projects are needed to measure impact.
Anecdotally, the siloed nature of the sampled DO3 activities seems to imply that the program’s impact
may not expand beyond the targeted communities, unless there was explicit GOI support for such
intervention at a systemic level.
RECOMMENDATIONS
xii
PROGRAM DESIGN
Recommendation 1. Partnership Approach: shift to a more focused portfolio of partnerships to reduce
USAID management burden and deepen impact
The testing phase for DO3 should now pave the way for a consolidating and deepening phase where the
Mission can channel its investments into a more targeted portfolio of activities. The issue is not which
partnership model or approach is “better,” or to standardize or reduce the types of models being used.
Rather, there should be more rigor in assessing the partner’s strengths and capabilities and their
proposed model for reaching the BOP.
To reduce administrative burden, USAID should consider working with strong backbone organizations
that can simultaneously facilitate program administration amongst the local organizations undertaking
actual implementation and build their capacity to scale and continue work beyond the initial program
timeline. Ideally, organizations providing backbone support to complex partnerships should have a pre￾existing understanding of USAID policies and procedures and should have strong capabilities with
regards to organizational capacity building, with sufficient resources reserved for the backbone entity to
provide the training and support needed.
Recommendation 2. Further enhance MA’s grant selection process and strengthen its capacity for
entrepreneurship development
While the MA platform has already instituted substantial adjustments to the grant selection process with
each round of competition, further improvements to increase transparency and impact include:
 Provide the opportunity for applicants to receive feedback on their failed grant application,
specifically those who were invited to submit a full application or to pitch their intervention.
 Create a feedback loop so lessons from each round are incorporated into subsequent rounds
 Include more business and subject matter experts in the selection panel and engage them earlier
in the evaluation process.
 Consider more targeted and larger investments in a few initiatives over a longer time frame. For
example, design grant rounds around specific themes, regions/sites, etc.
 Invest in an incubation period prior to formal grant award to ensure social entrepreneurs
develop a viable business model from the start.
Recommendation 3. Integrate entrepreneurship and business strengthening into program design
Besides funding innovations, USAID/India should invest more resources into promoting
entrepreneurship and managerial capabilities of social enterprises and start-ups, leveraging other in￾country entrepreneurship efforts and platforms such as PACE (Partnering to Accelerate
Entrepreneurship).
The current cohort of social enterprises and start-ups is often more focused on the R&D and marketing
aspects and sometimes neglect the fundamentals of business management – financial management,
personnel management, operations, etc. The challenges faced by MA grantees and IPP implementing
partners in meeting USAID report requirements are evidence of the limited operational capacity of
these enterprises. If these enterprises are to evolve, they will need to have increased bandwidth to plan
and manage expansion, develop diverse relationships with donors, investors, government, etc.—all of
whom will have different expectations and requirements. This means having the appropriate
organizational structure, staffing, and systems to respond. Future partnerships should be designed to
xiii
support not only the intervention/innovation but the organizational development needs for the business
to thrive.
Recommendation 4. Ensure consistent integration of Theory of Change and M&E into program design
USAID/India should ensure that during the co-creation process, partner organizations are able to define
and communicate the Theory of Change for their program. This is particularly important if the program
is to demonstrate impact at the Bottom of the Pyramid. There should be some reflection at the design
stage on how the program’s objectives and approach would lead to benefits, change, and gains for the
target beneficiaries. Beyond the one-off M&E training already provided to implementing organizations,
there is a need for continuous support and feedback from program design through implementation. The
Mission should consider a buy-in to central level M&E mechanisms where dedicated technical expertise
can be made available to guide and support implementing organizations throughout the entire process.
Recommendation 5. Ensure consistent gender integration throughout DO3 activities
Partnership design should ensure that gender is integrated at every level of the program—from program
staff, to tools and materials being developed, to program beneficiaries. A gender analysis should be
integrated upfront to evaluate organizational policies and procedures, technical competency of staff,
design and implementation of activities, and project results outcomes (See Annex F for a country case
example). Reporting should go beyond disaggregating data by gender to include qualitatively analysis on
issues related to gender empowerment and equality. Indicators and targets should include an analysis of
the results, especially when targets were not met, and what actions can be taken to improve the results.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendation 1: Create intentional opportunities for greater knowledge sharing, virtual, and in￾person networking among DO3 implementing partners, and between DO3 platforms and more
traditional programs.
Across all programs surveyed, there was a clear request for greater opportunities to network with
other implementers (or grantees on the part of the MA). USAID should consider structuring formal
opportunities for implementing partners to meet and share their successes and challenges. These can be
structured across sectors in a specific geography or they can be sector-specific but with a broader
geographic focus.
In addition to in-person meetings and convenings, all programs would benefit from a virtual platform on
which to communicate, share best practices, and learn from USAID. A platform such as this could
further serve as a means to provide on-demand trainings to implementing partners on USAID
compliance, policies and procedures in line with the Agency’s overall USAID Forward initiative.
Recommendation 2: Develop a regular schedule of trainings on USAID policies, procedures, and
compliance.
A number of partners noted that while participating in USAID-facilitated trainings was beneficial, they
were not offered on a consistent enough basis and they did not allow for a range of employees to
participate. Trainings should be offered on a regular basis and/or a Training of Trainers program should
be initiated to create champions at individual organizations.
xiv
Recommendation 3: Engage the private sector as pro bono consultants and mentors to build the
capacity of beneficiary social enterprises and implementing partners alike.
The vast pool of managerial talent and human capital that exists within private companies inside and
outside of India is an untapped resource that USAID/India should explore. Employees from private
sector companies bring a wealth of expertise to bear with regards to common challenges faced by social
enterprises and non-profits alike.
In addition to the multinational corporations with pro bono consulting programs, a number of Indian
businesses either currently have or are in the process of developing programs. These programs are
highly cost effective as the private sector partner generally pays its employees’ expenses. They also
create avenues for future engagement and partnership with the sponsoring companies by creating
internal champions for the good work being done by host clients. There are existing mechanisms for
engagement, including the recently released VISP APS and the Global Health Corporate Champions that
can be used to engage private sector human capital.
Recommendation 4: Explore opportunities to fund platform programs that address multiple
community-challenges across USAID sectors.
As previously noted, the issues that negatively impact the population at the Bottom of the Pyramid are
systemic – challenges in accessing sufficient nutrition, which negatively impacts children’s ability to learn,
are often driven by a lack of economic opportunity or poor agronomic practices. Addressing only one
piece of this system will not lead to sustainable outcomes for the community. USAID has the
opportunity through the platform model to work with a number of local organizations that bring
different types of expertise to the table to address the complex challenges facing the Bottom of the
Pyramid. The focus on working with and through local organizations will lower barriers to impact and
will contribute to continued localization of programming. It will also enable USAID to serve as an
incubator for these organizations and support them in building their operational capacity.
Recommendation 5: Maximize opportunities for implementing partners and grantees to network with
the GOI and integrate GOI engagement strategies from the beginning of program implementation.
Successful engagement with and adoption of interventions by the Government of India will be critical to
the ability of DO3 program activities to reach the BOP. Creating formal showcases of programs and
facilitating listening sessions between representatives from the GOI and implementing partners will ease
communication and will encourage a supply and demand approach. See Annex G for a country case
example.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEXT CDCS
While the original scope of the evaluation does not require the team to make specific recommendations
regarding the next CDCS, the following are some factors that the Mission may wish to consider as part
of its deliberations and planning.
Recommendation 1: Both the IPP and the MA are valid mechanisms to test innovative partnership and
intervention models and should be continued in future CDCS
xv
Though the assessment did not allow for direct comparison of DO3 activities against more traditional
program approaches and funding mechanisms, it is apparent that activities undertaken under both IPP
and MA drive forward a number of objectives which are important to the Mission in India and USAID
more broadly, including increased localization of programs and efforts to test innovations that could be
scaled in other geographies. For the programs under the IPP, the aspect of co-creation and actively
engaging local implementers makes for programming that is innately more responsive to the challenges
and opportunities inherent to local challenges. Because IPP models require local implementers to
operate within the structures of a USAID-funded program, it further enables their organizational
development, making them more efficient and sustainable over time. Similarly, the MA seeks to find local
solutions to local challenges that engage a market-based approach. The partnerships with other bi-lateral
development agencies, Indian entities (i.e. FICCI and TDB), and private sector players in the
development space make it a potential model for other geographies that seek to distribute risk, improve
cross-sector partnerships, and empower local entities.
Recommendation 2: Integrate planning for sustainability from day one and consider longer term
funding for successful initiatives.
To ensure the sustainability of platforms, planning must begin from the moment of program launch.
Consideration should be given if there will be a continuing entity, if so what its role will be, and how the
partners will benefit from this type of central administrative entity. Certainly, small organizations would
benefit from shared services that could be provided by a central platform organization, but it is critical
to understand where they see the value and then to work towards creating a format that works for all
parties.
Recommendation 3: Actively seek to better understand how implementing partners can provide value
to the Indian private sector and their CSR engagement strategies, especially in relation to the 2% Law.
As with the public sector, a clear and open dialogue is critical to understanding how USAID
programming can provide added value to corporations. USAID should continue to participate actively in
CSR conferences and other convenings where the private sector will be present – this should be as
much of a listening exercise as an opportunity to present ongoing programs. USAID should also take
advantage of its reputation as a strong convener in India to host its own sessions – focused on specific
geographies or topics as appropriate.
It is also critical to understand where the private sector seeks to invest. USAID should continue to scan
the market landscape to understand which private sector companies – both Indian and multinational –
are engaged in or interested in areas that align with USAID’s funding priorities.
Successful partnership with the private sector will be a result of both partners bringing their unique
expertise to the table and building on that to create greater value. USAID/India should consider
developing an organizational strategy for engagement with clear targets and performance indicators. A
similar approach can be utilized at the program level, but should be developed as early as possible in the
implementation period.
Recommendation 4: Continue to foster a culture of innovation and risk-taking across all offices within
the Mission, where staff are incentivized to learn from innovations that do not reach their objective.
USAID/India has been at the forefront of integrating the STIP approach into their CDCS. The Millennium
Alliance and innovation ecosystems platforms like PAHAL, SELCO, and New Ventures have effectively
xvi
used market-based mechanisms and leveraged donor funding to engage and strengthen social enterprises
in India. In the team’s discussion with Mission staff, it is clear that there are differing perspectives on
what defines innovation and the level of acceptable risk-taking among those in the program office and
the technical offices.
The very nature of innovation is that it does not always succeed or it succeeds only in specific
environments. Failure of interventions to reach their goal is a challenge for any donor, but the key to
truly fostering innovation is developing a comfort with the potential for failure and creating the
infrastructure to learn from these failures. If USAID/India’s strategy is to foster an organizational culture
that is based on innovation and private sector partnerships, the right incentives structure needs to be in
place. The Mission could consider reserving a portion of funding for a pure innovation fund with the
expressed understanding that up to a certain percentage (80%) of the ideas tested could not reach their
targets. This could be done within the framework of an ongoing or existing partnership model.
17
INTRODUCTION
I. BACKGROUND
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) five-year (2012-2017) Country Development
Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) reflects the transformation of the USAID-India relationship from a
traditional donor-recipient to a peer-to-peer partnership whereby India and the U.S. collaborate to
solve global development challenges together. Through this approach, USAID focuses on catalyzing new
partnerships and scaling proven solutions globally.
Development Objective (DO) 3 of the USAID/India CDCS seeks to impact people’s lives at the base of
the economic pyramid (BOP) in India through Alliances, partnership platforms, and other appropriate
mechanisms. DO3 activities seek to build sectoral and thematic partnership platforms and alliances in
the areas of health, climate change, education, and food security to identify, test, and scale development
innovations with the potential for “game-changing” impact in India.
USAID defines innovation as:3
Novel business or organizational models; operational or production processes; or products or
services that lead to substantial improvements (not incremental ones), in executing against
development challenges. Innovation can incorporate science and technology but this
integration is not necessary. Innovation…[should] help produce development outcomes more
effectively, more cheaply, that reach more beneficiaries, and in a shorter period of time.
Under the DO3 Project Appraisal Document, USAID/India also added that “game-changing” innovations
ideally need to provide a 3 to 10-time increase/decrease in whatever development result the Mission is
attempting to achieve.
DO3 activities are funded through two main initiatives: the India Partnership Program (IPP) Annual
Program Statement and the Millennium Alliance (MA).4 Under these windows, USAID/India has utilized
different partnership models, alliances, and platforms to meet its objectives.
II. EVALUATION PURPOSE
As USAID/India approaches the end of its current CDCS and is in the process of designing the next
phase of its strategy, the mission is interested in evaluating the extent to which partnerships have
effectively achieved development impact based upon agreed performance measures or have defined
innovation progressing through the four (4) stages/steps of the “innovation pipelines.” To that end, the
purpose of the evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, and impact of the partnership
models and approaches that have been implemented by USAID/India since 2012. In particular, the
evaluation:
3 http://www.usaid.gov/innovation/faq.html
4 There are few additional activities in the education, forestry, and health areas that were awarded prior to these
two mechanisms but are included under the DO3 portfolio due to their focus on the BOP.
18
 Assessed the progress toward achieving the expected results of the USAID/India DO3 program
(2012 - 2016)
 Assessed the efficiency and effectiveness of program design, implementation, and sustainability
mechanisms
 Identified lessons learned and proposed actionable recommendations to guide implementation
for the remaining period of the program.
The full Scope of Work (SOW) for this evaluation is included in Annex B.
III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The DO3 evaluation sought to answer the following four questions:
1. Is USAID’s Science, Technology and Innovation and Partnership (STIP) approach consistent
with the overall objective and the attainment of its DO3 immediate results?
2. To what extent has the intervention been cost effective? What factors are influencing any
particular discrepancies?
3. To what extent are the partnership approach and the interventions resulting from the
innovations identified through IPP 1.0 and MA, contributing towards accelerating improved
development outcomes in health care, child survival clean water and sanitation, education,
clean energy, food security and nutrition?
4. What signs are there of changes associated with target interventions in health care, child
survival, clean water and sanitation, education, clean energy, food security and nutrition, e.g.,
what changes do people living at the bottom of the pyramid and other stakeholders
attribute to the interventions?
The evaluation team developed an evaluation matrix (Annex C) detailing the related questions and
information that are needed to answer these questions.
19
METHODOLOGY
The team used quantitative and qualitative methods (mixed methods) to generate findings that are both
generalizable and which are based on a rich level of detail. Primary data were collected through surveys,
key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussion (FGDs). Secondary data were collected
through a desk review of documentation at three levels: (i) the country level (CDCS, DO3 Project
Appraisal Document, Performance Plan Report), (ii) project level (cooperative agreement, quarterly
report, work plan), and (iii) published research level (on development innovations in India, public private
partnerships, and relevant USAID reports—global development alliance, global development lab, etc.).
Through the combination of these methods, the technical approach enabled a consistent triangulation of
quantitative and qualitative data and helped to ensure that findings are drawn from evidence of the
highest possible quality.
I. DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Quantitative data collection covering areas related to the evaluation questions consisted of:
 Online survey. At the start of the evaluation, a short online survey was posted on SurveyMonkey
and distributed to all DO3 implementing partners. Most questions were closed-ended, and the
results enabled the team to obtain a quick overview of program issues.
 Analysis of project data. Data from the sample activities were utilized by the team to make
inferences about operational efficiencies and effectiveness. Given the diverse sectors and range
of activities, and the lack of benchmarks, comparative analysis was not possible.
Qualitative methods were used to learn about the DO3 mechanism and activities from stakeholders
engaged at every level to enable the evaluation team to arrive at an in-depth, multi-faceted
understanding of relevant processes, relationships, and interactions as they relate to the key evaluation
questions. Semi-structured KIIs were the main method for collecting qualitative, primary data. Data
collection instruments are included in Annex H.
II. SAMPLING
Between 2012-2016, the DO3 portfolio comprises 42 prime partners, including FICCI which manages
the Millennium Alliance. Under the Millennium Alliance, there have been a total of 87 grants awarded
through four rounds of open competition.
Given the diversity of sectors and dispersed geographic locations of DO3 activities, and the limited
timeframe for data collection (two weeks), USAID/India identified several states where there existed a
cluster of implementing partners. From this pre-selected list, the team made a purposeful sampling based
on the following criteria: (i) mix of sectors, (ii) mix of locations (urban and rural), (iii) balanced mix
between IPP and MA activities, (iv) mix of budget size and funding category (for MA grantees), and (v)
mix of implementation stage.
In total, the team conducted KIIs with 12 prime partners, 11 MA grantees, and 4 IPP sub-partners. See
Annex D for a complete list of interviewees and Annex E for a short description of the sampled
activities.
20
The team also conducted site visits of six (6) programs: IPE Global’s PAHAL, WaterHealth
International’s Community Water Systems in Bangalore Slums, Aakar Innovations’ Empowering Women
through menstrual hygiene solutions, CLT’s e-Patashale, CKS’ READ Alliance, and Center for
Microfinance’s Nurturing Early Literacy. These site visits enabled the team to observe first-hand the
interventions being funded and to hold informal discussion with local beneficiaries and stakeholders.
For the online survey, a total of 25 organizations out of 42 completed the questionnaire, representing a
59.5% response rate. Of the 25 respondents, 13 (52%) organizations and activities were not part of the
sample for KIIs and site visits. Given the modest response rate of the survey, the results of this
quantitative survey are being used mainly to supplement and/or reinforce the qualitative data analysis.
III. SECTORAL AND GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
The sampled DO3 activities covered seven (7) states: Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana,
Rajasthan, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. The geographic and sectoral breakdown of the sampled activities
are illustrated below.
IV. LIMITATIONS
Given the allotted timeframe of three weeks for in-country planning and data collection, most of the
findings in this evaluation are applicable to the sampled activities only and should not be projected to the
broader DO3 portfolio. Where appropriate, the team has highlighted success factors and/or challenges
that may have broader relevance to how USAID/India approaches partnerships and private sector
engagement. Specific findings or example about an individual activity/program should be interpreted in
the context of the partnership approach and process, and are not meant to make a value judgement on
the technical merit or financial performance of the implementing organization.
In addition, the diversity of program activities that are covered under DO3 – in terms of sectoral focus,
partnership model, funding level, budgeting – was not conducive to a comparative analysis approach.
Hence, the team adapted a SWOT analysis approach to make inferences regarding the effectiveness and
efficiency of the different partnership models and approaches utilized.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Education Clean
energy/forestry
Food security Health/WASH Other
Sampled DO3 Activities by Sector
IPP MA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sampled DO3 Activities by Location
IPP MA
21
KEY FINDINGS
The findings of the evaluation are organized along the four evaluation questions, whose content is
categorized and illustrated in Figure 1 below.
EVALUATION QUESTION 1. PROGRAM DESIGN: PARTNERSHIP MODEL,
STIP APPROACH
Finding 1. Using a variety of partnership models and approaches allows for a wider range of
collaboration and provides a useful testing ground for tackling the complexity inherent in
development.
Broadly, the partnership models utilized by the sampled organizations under DO3 can be classified into
five general models/approaches (Table 1). Each model enabled USAID and its implementing partners to
test and scale up innovations or creates an ecosystem for nurturing those innovations. The innovation
grant model, as represented by the Millennium Alliance under FICCI, is the most significant of these
models both in terms of the size of USAID investment and the number of social enterprises supported.
Established as a risk-taking platform, the MA has become an important player in the impact investment
space and has grown beyond a program to become institutionalized within FICCI.
The other four models fall under the IPP funding mechanism, which entails a co-creation process and a
1-to-1 cost-sharing between USAID and the implementing organization. While the design process is
different, their operating structure is similar to what one would see in a traditional program. Of these
models, the innovation ecosystem (#2) and the innovation capability (#4) models have the highest
potential to move beyond being a time-bound project. More details about these models and the
associated programs are provided in the findings below.
Impact on
the Bottom
of the
Pyramid
Program
Implementation:
cost-efficiency
Program design:
partnership
model, STIP
approach
Program
implementation:
effectiveness and
sustainability
Figure 1. Analytical Framework for DO3 Evaluation
22
Table 1. Typology of DO3 Partnership Approaches
Model/Approach Objective Key characteristics Representative
Implementing
Organization
6. Platform for funding
development solutions
through innovation
grants
Innovation testing, scale￾up, and transfer
Open competition,
short-term funding
Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce
and Industry (FICCI)
7. Platform for building
market-based
innovation
ecosystem
Market development,
entrepreneurship,
investment facilitation,
enabling policy
environment
Tailored capacity
building, adaptive
management approach,
labor and time intensive
SELCO Foundation,
Global Social Benefits
Institute (GSBI) at Santa
Clara University/New
Ventures, IPE Global
8. Direct
implementation with
NGO/private start-up
Replicate and/or expand
an existing intervention,
solution
Target at-risk/
marginalized
communities and
geographies
WaterHealth, Skymet
9. Facilitating public
sector innovation
though intellectual
capital
Provide technical
assistance and value
addition to government
Time-bound project
based intervention, task￾specific, milestone￾driven
KPMG Project
Management Unit (PMU),
Solidarity and Action
Against the HIV Infection
in India (SAATHII)
10.Platform for promoting
innovation capability
Expand capabilities of local
actors to test, implement,
and advocate for
innovation
Intervention driven,
time-bound intervention
Impact Foundation
(Dasra), Center for
Knowledge Societies
(CKS), Center for Micro
Finance (CMF), Ashoka
Trust for Research in
Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE)
Finding 2. DO3 partnership models have succeeded in bringing in new implementing partners,
especially local organizations and social enterprises with no previous experience with USAID.
Of the five approaches cited above, the innovation grants model (MA) through the multiple grant rounds
brought in a substantial number of new actors into the development sphere, particularly
social enterprises and start-ups that would not have appeared on USAID’s radar screen otherwise. The
innovation ecosystem model was smaller in scale in terms of the number of social enterprises included
in the platform but the level of intervention tends to be broader and deeper. The direct implementation
model enabled USAID to work directly with a private sector entity to roll-out and test innovative
solutions. The innovation capability model brought in new local organizations as prime partners
and through them, expanded the circle of non-profit organizations that benefited from USAID support
(both through capacity building and financial support).
Out of the 27 organizations the team interviewed, only four (4) have benefited from USAID support in
the past and three (IPE Global, KPMG, CMF sub-awardee Room to Read) have had a direct contractual
relationship with USAID. For the majority of the sample, this was the first time they have worked with
USAID. For many (8 out of the 12 prime implementing partners), this was the first time serving as a
prime implementing partner.
23
Results from the online quantitative survey confirmed that a majority of respondents (61%) have never
worked with USAID before, while 16% had worked as prime implementing partner or grantee, and
another 16% were sub-grantees. The survey also showed that the level of knowledge about USAID
development objectives has increased among partners as a result of the partnership, with 96% of
partners citing that they now have good or excellent knowledge compared to 56% before (Figure 2).
Finding 3. Co-creation of program is resource-intensive but can result in higher level of
ownership, accountability, and creativity.
One of the differentiating characteristics of the partnership model is the co-creation of a program,
where USAID and the partnering organization(s) align their interest to agree on the development
objectives and outcomes of the project, and collaboratively design the technical approach, structure,
interventions, and the results framework for monitoring and evaluation. Unlike traditional USAID
approaches to programming, co-creation requires more upfront investment of labor and time by
USAID and implementing partners.
For partnering approaches that entailed setting up of a platform (models #2, 4 and 5), the partners
interviewed indicated that the co-creation/design process took at least one year to complete from initial
application to award. The co-creation process for programs managed by WaterHealth and Skymet was
more streamlined since it entailed direct implementation (model #3), hence the time from application to
award averaged 6 months.
The FICCI (model #1) and the KPMG PMU (model #4) partnerships were exceptional cases where
USAID played the convening role that resulted in a formal partnership, rather than through a co￾creation process:
 For the Millennium Alliance, the discussion around the innovation grant platform was initiated by
USAID, who reached out to FICCI as a partner given the entity’s good rapport with the private
sector and its existing level of trust. According to FICCI, USAID played a key role in aligning
the stakeholders’ interest and with its brand gave credibility and legitimacy to the launch of the
platform. The collaboration agreement between USAID and FICCI contains in broad strokes the
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Figure 2. Knowledge of USAID development objectives and
activities before and since partnership
Before After
24
goals of the MA and the roles and responsibilities of the respective parties. The details on
processes and systems would be established during the implementation stage.
 The Technical Assistance for Swachh Bharat program, implemented by KPMG and the WASH
Institute is the result of a MOU between USAID, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the
Ministry of Urban Development. The original objective was highly focused on outputs – such as
installing additional public toilets, but has shifted to be more outcome-based over time – for
example, reducing the amount of open defecation in target geographies. According to KPMG,
the program is aligned along the ‘4Ss’: Strategic and aligned to identified GOI needs; Speed –
special focus is put on rolling out activities quickly and being highly responsive; Scalability –
because of the national importance of the Swachh Bharat initiative focusing on programs that
can be quickly rolled out across multiple municipalities is critical; and Sustainability – ensuring
the buy-in of municipal governments and their WASH offices.
For the other implementing organizations, the overall impression of the co-creation process was
generally positive:
 For SAATHII, this was the first time that the
organization was applying as a prime implementer
with USAID. While SAATHII considers its main
strength to be service delivery, particularly in the
HIV/AIDS space, the co-creation process with
USAID helped the organization to realize the
benefits of expanding its presence and
capability in Public Private Partnership
(PPP). SAATHII appreciated the different
perspective provided by USAID, and felt that the
co-creation process helped to push the
organization outside of its “comfort zone” and
ultimately enabled them to design a more
innovative program.
 Through initial exploratory meetings between
Center for Micro Finance (CMF), Tata Trust and
USAID, the three organizations were able to
identify early childhood education and preschool as
common objectives. CMF and Tata Trust felt that
USAID brought important experience to the table
and held the same optics on outcome and
development objectives. For CMF, USAID was
seen not just as a funding partner but a
knowledge and funding partner.
 For IPE Global, USAID’s strengths lay in its unique capacity and ease in working with both
Government of India (GOI) and the private sector to build an ecosystem. USAID was willing to
allow PAHAL to develop a platform where it could test different business models to expand
private primary healthcare to the urban poor. The organization also felt that there was sufficient
flexibility in the platform to engage and mobilize new partners.
Benefits of USAID Partnership
There was a consensus among all partners that
partnering with USAID has raised their credibility and
visibility. The top three benefits cited by implementing
organizations and sub-awardees for partnering with
USAID were: (i) the USAID network and convening
power, (ii) the USAID staff’s technical expertise, and
(iii) the USAID’s relationship with government
counterparts.
 CMF stated that partnering with USAID
shows that there is a high level of trust in
the organization due to the extensive due
diligence, financial management
requirements, and knowledge management.
 Selco stated that USAID has acted as a de
facto “marketing agent” in Delhi on policy
issues related to energy efficiency at the
national and central levels. This was
especially helpful since Selco does not have a
presence in the capital.
 ZMQ, a MA grantee who has worked with
several international NGOs in the past,
appreciated USAID’s willingness to partner
directly with Indian organizations and to
work with non-established groups.
25
 For Dasra, working with USAID enabled the organization to play a new role of intermediary
rather than implementer, where the goal is to build an ecosystem to help build understanding of
issues related to adolescent health and strengthen non-profits that work in that area. Partnering
with USAID enabled Dasra to bring other donors to the table to expand its existing platform.
Finding 4. Active, respectful, and consistent engagement by USAID leads to a smoother design
process.
AORs can be a trusted and beneficial partner in the co-design and implementation process when they
act in partnership with implementing partners. Organizations interviewed all noted that the AOR plays
a central role in the co-creation/design process since s/he set the tone for the process and can influence
the dynamics of the discussion.
The key success factors cited by partners include:
 Nature of collaboration – AORs that give the partner equal standing and refrain from taking
the lead in the design process will enhance the co-ownership of the program and better results
down the line. A higher sense of mutual trust and respect also facilitates continued collaboration
throughout the implementation process.
 Level of responsiveness – timely response from the AOR on requests and/or clarification
questions will not only avoid significant delays in the design process but also minimize the level
of frustration among partners, especially when a lag in communication is followed by immediate
request for response.
 Technical consistency – more consistent and constructive feedback during design process
can pave the way for smoother implementation. Internal coordination (both within USAID and
the partner organization) can also help to minimize incoherence and misunderstandings.
 Staff continuity—having the same AOR or primary contact at USAID was beneficial to most
partners in navigating the bureaucracy, especially grantees with no or limited prior USAID
experience. Minimizing staff rotation also contributes to improved consistency of
communication and technical feedback.
Finding 5. Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) is not always integrated at the onset and Theory of
Change is not sufficiently fleshed out when designing activities.
Among the 12 sampled projects, only one project, PAHAL, had a theory of change integrated into its
design, and only 3 projects had developed a log frame/results framework at the onset of the program.
For the KPMG PMU, its agreement was designed around milestones and there was detailed reporting of
outcomes and impact around each of the milestone, just not in the traditional USAID log frame. The
remaining 6 projects developed a M&E framework during the first year of implementation and reported
regularly on these indicators. While all partners have received technical assistance and training on M&E
from USAID and deem the support to be useful, many also indicated that continuous support on
data collection and analysis throughout program implementation is also needed.
FICCI acknowledged that the MA platform lacked a structured M&E process in the initial rounds. Part of
the reason was the lack of funding for administrative costs for FICCI and the lack of technical expertise.
Eventually a local firm TTC was hired as a sub-awardee in 2016 to manage the M&E component. In
January 2017, TTC conducted a mid-term review of Round 1 and 2 grantees and found that:
26
 Nearly 41% of awardees did not have a structured M & E framework and process in place.
 Key gap areas included the absence of a M&E team, lack of clarity in differentiating activities with
project output/outcome specific indicators, and no clear methodology for data collection and
analysis.
 31% of awardees (all from Round 2) did not conduct any baseline study prior to starting the
project, including 8 for-profit and 1 not-for-profit enterprise. Three (3) awardees (12%) did not
provide any details on baseline study while the rest of the awardees (62%) provided varying level
of details.
 Almost 50% of all the for-profit enterprises were not able to formulate the ‘theory of change’
for their project.
Conclusion
The STIP approach appears to be consistent with the objective and attainment of DO3 results. By
implementing and testing a variety of partnership models and platforms, USAID/India has successfully
increased its engagement with the private sector while driving forward its development priorities in
India and potentially in other regions. Key success aspects include increased localization of programs and
efforts to test innovations that could be scaled in other geographies. In addition, the co-creation process
and active collaboration with local implementers enhances local ownership and accountability, and
results in more realistic and responsive programming for local developmental challenges. An important
improvement to be addressed moving forward includes a more robust monitoring and evaluation
system.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: COST￾EFFICIENCY
A review of the formal agreements for the 12 implementing partners sampled for the evaluation showed
that there was no standard budget structure for activities under DO3. Some budgets are broken
into categories like personnel, direct costs, and ODCs while others are broken down by milestones. For
technical assistance platforms where the bulk of implementation consists of human capital, personnel
costs are much higher, ranging from 38% for PAHAL to 76% for SAATHII.
Since each partnership was designed and negotiated collaboratively, the budget was structured to align
with the nature of the project activities and to provide more flexibility to the partner. While this makes
sense from a technical and contracting level, it is not conducive for evaluation purposes since it is
difficult to make a comparative analysis about cost-effectiveness based on metrics like
overhead costs or cost per beneficiary. The findings in this section cover three qualitative metrics that
are used as proxies for addressing the questions of cost-efficiency: (i) start-up time and program
expenditures; (ii) administrative burden; and (iii) ability to leverage external funding.
Finding 1. Establishing new partnership platforms means longer start-up time and slower
expenditures but can reap rewards down the line.
For new platforms, a formation period is critical and a longer runway (more than 5 years) is needed to
achieve impact. In this regard, the majority of the five models evaluated, except for the direct
implementation (WaterHealth, Skymet) and the KPMG PMU, took at least one year to have some
concrete measurable results. The slow start-up is due to both technical and operational reasons.
27
For agreements that are written broadly, significant groundwork needs to be done at the outset to
collaborate with the government to identify the specific activity areas (SAATHII), gather the supporting
evidence through research (Dasra, ATREE), and conduct market research and build relationships with
the relevant market actors (PAHAL, SELCO, GSBI/New Venture).
On the operational side, innovation grant platforms like the Millennium Alliance have to set up managing
structures (e.g. the Strategic Advisory Committee), the rules and policies for grant selection, grant
management, and grant monitoring. Innovation capability models like CMF and READ Alliance also went
through the same process but also faced additional challenges as new USAID partners since they need
more upfront time to establish the required project management infrastructure.
The USAID/India Mission had set a target of 55% of total obligations to be allocated to local
organizations in FY 2016. The Mission’s PPR for FY16 reported that the actual obligation was 27%,
$29.3 million obligated out of the targeted $110 million. The primary reason for this discrepancy was
due to delays in local awards due to the time required in co-designing and the lack of local partners'
capacity. For example, CMF’s obligation was delayed until their internal systems were certified to be
compliant with USAID requirements.
Non-traditional partners have limited knowledge of and capacity to comply with USAID policies and
procedures regarding personnel management, contract management, and financial management. The
learning curve was high for these new partners but most organizations felt that they received adequate
technical support from USAID and their AOR. All implementing partners who are new to USAID
received OAA training and also a high level of handholding in developing their M&E framework, branding
plan, etc. According to the online quantitative survey, all IPP-funded partners received at least 5 days of
USAID compliance training. The survey also showed that the level of knowledge about USAID
policies and procedures increased significantly among implementing organizations, with
95% ranking their current knowledge as good or excellent compared to 35% prior to the partnership
(Figure 3).
Using obligation level and expenditures as metrics can distract from the potential impact that these new
platforms can achieve, and the capacity building that local organizations have gained from their
partnership with USAID (see findings 2 and 3 below). Partners mentioned that USAID policies and
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Figure 3. Partner's knowledge of USAID policies and
procedures before and since the partnership
Before After
28
procedures provide the structure to train more of their staff and to instill the importance of good
financial and program management practices. Another partner organization stated that in working with
private sector, USAID should focus less on burn rate and outputs and adopt a longer view of
incremental achievements that will result in wider market development and systemic change.
Finding 2. Administrative burden is higher for USAID and for Implementing Organizations
when forming new partnerships.
USAID/India’s initial assumption was that partnering with private sector would reduce staffing levels. In
fact, given the capacity issue of local partner organizations discussed above, the administrative burden on
USAID staff has been greater than with traditional programs. Traditional programs tend to be more
directed and structured whereas the new partnership models under DO3 require collaboration
and co-creation at every stage, from design to implementation to M&E.
Implementing organizations also face a great level of administrative requirements with USAID than they
are usually accustomed to. Nonetheless, most partners interviewed did not see these reporting
requirements as burdensome, though a few did mention that the timeline is not always appropriate to
program/project implementation realities. Moreover, USAID requirements on impact
measurement are seen as beneficial beyond the USAID-funded program/project, even if it takes
time for new implementers (especially from private sector) to understand benefit, and require more
technical support and handholding on the part of USAID.
In the online quantitative survey, respondents were asked to rank their satisfaction with USAID
partnership in the following aspects: (i) Co-creation of the project, (ii) Agreeing on outcomes and
performance indicators, (iii) Negotiating funding level and cost sharing, (iv) Contractual process, (v)
Reporting requirements, and (vi) Communications. As Figure 4 shows, the overall level of satisfaction is
quite good, with 60-70% of respondents giving a score of 4 or 5 (with 1 being not satisfied and 5 being
very satisfied). The three areas where a few partners scored lower relate to contractual process,
negotiating funding level, and reporting requirements.
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%
Co-creation of the project
Agreeing on outcomes and performance
indicators
Negotiating funding level and cost sharing
Contractual process
Reporting requirements
Communications
Figure 4. Partners' Ranking of Their Experience with USAID
1 = Not satisfied and 5 = Very satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
29
Finding 3. DO3 activities have successfully leveraged additional funding from external sources
(public and private).
While most partners organizations do not have a concrete strategy for attracting external funding, they
all agree that the partnership with USAID has helped to open doors. Respondents to the quantitative
survey confirmed that USAID partnership was helpful in attracting additional funding (see
Figure 5).
To date, most of the leveraged funding has been opportunistic so there is potential to harness and
unlock additional private sector investments in the future. Overall, the leverage ratio for the
sampled activities are about 2 to 1, with a few exceeding 5 to 1 (MA, KPMG PMU, GSBI/New
Ventures, SELCO). Below are some illustrative examples based on interviews and USAID reporting:
 The MA’s demonstrated success helped FICCI to attract additional funders and resource
partners to the platform. New partners included ICCO Cooperation, ICICI Foundation, UK
AID, WISH Foundation, World Bank (Knowledge Partner), and Facebook (Social media linkage –
does not put in funds). UK AID confirmed that it joined the MA platform because it was an
established vehicle and the presence of USAID provided added legitimacy. TDB has
recommended to the government that MA as a platform be supported for another 10 years with
double funding.
 Being associated with the Millennium Alliance has helped several grantees attract additional
external funding:
o Aakar Innovations felt that being a MA Grantee raised the company’s profile and helped
connect with investors and other partners. As a result of the grant, Aakar received new
funding from CIDA and was able to use the MA grant as matching funds.
o Samagra has been supported by grant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, Ashoka Fellowship and Acumen India Fellowship and several awards for
implementing an innovative business model for sanitation.
30
o CLT was able to leverage the MA grant to raise additional funding from Nokia and Cisco
to replicate their e-Patashale model outside of Karnataka.
 WaterHealth attracted donors such as Citibank, Tata Trust and Gap Inc. to fund the
establishment of 26 WaterHealth Centers in addition to the project’s own initial 25 Centers.
 The KPMG PMU-supported study helped 73 cities identify gaps in their WASH plans, prompting
the MOHUA to dedicate its own $1.25 million to expand the survey to 500 of India’s largest
cities; USAID’s initial investment was only $200,000.
 SAATHII is partnering with the WISH Foundation as part of its activities with the tea plantation
in Assam to expand primary health care, and has also begun discussion with Microsoft for
potential partnership related to the use of Artificial Intelligence and 3-D training.
 SELCO has received additional funding from Good Energy ($500k), Doen Foundation ($500k),
Lehmelson Foundation ($500k), and GIZ ($350k).
 CKS was able to help its sub-grantees raise US$ 500,000 from CSR funding.
 Dasra raised nearly US$5 million (INR 32 crores) through its Dasra Giving Circles for its
RMNCH+A alliance partners. The platform is currently working with 41 funders, including 28
philanthropist and family foundations, 12 corporate funders, and one high net worth individual.
 PAHAL is working with two DCA partner banks to leverage $10 million in financing for private
primary care providers.
Conclusion
Due to the diversity of approaches, sectors, and scale of activities, it is not possible to assess the cost￾effectiveness of one model relative to the others. The team also did not have sufficient time and
resources to determine whether the partnership model is more cost-effective than traditional USAID
programming. On the one hand, working with new partners entails a greater level of administrative
burden. On the other hand, these partnerships were able to bring new sources of funding that would
not have been part of the picture otherwise. Over time, the upfront investment in capacity building for
local organizations and strengthening their ability to raise funds would result in a more self-sustaining
ecosystem than if USAID were to continue working predominantly with international organizations.
EVALUATION QUESTION 3. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: EFFECTIVENESS
AND SUSTAINABILITY
Finding 1. Programs falling under DO3 have been effective in meeting program goals and
objectives.
Though the scope of this activity did not include an assessment of non-DO3 programs for a direct
comparison, a review of the FY16 Performance Plan Report and individual program progress reports
show that programs under the DO3 umbrella have consistently reached or exceeded their
programmatic targets. Overall, the sampled DO3 activities exceeded their targets by an average of 71%.
Three primary factors stand out as contributing to program effectiveness:
 Nearly all implementing partners are Indian organizations with close ties to the communities
in which they operate, reducing barriers to trust.
 The ability to leverage additional funds due to the legitimacy conveyed through the
USAID partnership. In response to the online survey question about the role of USAID in
31
helping partners to “incubate, accelerate, or scale innovation,” 7 out of 15 (47%) responding
organizations deemed USAID to be Very Helpful while 6 out of 15 (40%) deemed the Agency to
be Moderately Helpful (Figure 6).
 In some cases, a higher than anticipated level of buy-in from the local or national
government contributed to increased effectiveness.
Finding 2. Program effectiveness would be enhanced with increased opportunities for
communication across programs, platforms, and sectors throughout the implementation
period.
Across all DO3 activities, effectiveness would be improved with enhanced mechanisms for
communication across programs and internally for programs with multiple partners. A more
intentional knowledge management structure would improve overall program effectiveness by
reducing duplication of effort and minimizing learning curves, while simultaneously creating opportunities
for innovative thinking and out-of-the-box partnerships.
Most implementing partners interviewed appreciated the networking opportunity provided by the
partners meeting. However, the large number of participants during these meetings can make it difficult
to engage in meaningful dialogue and technical discussions. Creating additional opportunities for in￾person networking would further enhance the ability of programs to maximize innovative approaches,
enabling learning from diverse actors in different sectors and creating the relationships that can
lead to formal partnerships.
For instance, Samagra, a MA grantee from Round 3, was able to create distributor relationships with a
number of other grantees to sell its products through the enterprise kiosks at Samagra-managed public
toilets in Pune and other geographies. These relationships provide additional revenue to the women
entrepreneurs who run the kiosks, capital for upkeep of the toilets themselves, and a new distribution
channel for the partnering social enterprises. However, these connections were made primarily on an ad
hoc basis and were actively pursued by the grantee rather than facilitated by FICCI. Maximizing and
facilitating these types of relationships would further enhance the effectiveness and scope of the
46.67%
40.00%
13.33%
0.00%
Figure 6. USAID's role in incubating, accelerating, or scaling
up partner's innovations
Very helpful Moderately helpful A little helpful Not helpful
32
program while simultaneously contributing to sustainability and innovative thinking.
Creating successful communications channels continues to be a challenge. Although USAID excels at
bringing together diverse actors at the macro-level, as is the case with the Millennium Alliance funding
partners, there are currently limited examples of linkages being created across implementing
partners – especially those operating under different technical offices. There is significant opportunity,
as noted by partners such as SELCO, SAATHI, and CKS, to share lessons learned and encourage cross￾sector partnerships.
For example, significant work is being done in both access to energy and health system strengthening.
Many health clinics that primarily serve the poor have irregular access to electricity. Creating linkages
between the implementing partners in both programming verticals could create opportunities for
collaboration and program innovation that would otherwise be missed. Even within platforms, greater
attention should be paid to sharing lessons learned across sub-contractors. This will create efficiencies in
program administration and will create opportunities to share lessons learned and best practices in real
time to avoid duplication of efforts.
An important success factor of the MA is its ability to bring together a diverse group of
funding partners on a regular basis. Both UKAid and the Technology Development Board (TDB)
noted that this was one of the greatest strengths of the program and an activity that had benefits beyond
the immediate goal of information sharing and decision-making. However, a similar level of
convening is not duplicated on the implementation side among the grantees. Assembling
grantees into learning cohorts, grouping them according to stages of organizational development,
sectors, or localities, present opportunities to discover and exploit synergies, thus improving program
effectiveness while concurrently creating a network of socially-minded Indian enterprises. Numerous
grantees noted that they would appreciate these types of convenings.
With regards to programs under the IPP umbrella, there is a similar lack of informal communication and
networking opportunities. This was clear even for organizations operating on the same platform.
Facilitating increased engagement across its implementing partners and their sub-contractors will enable
USAID’s goal of creating innovation platforms which “[use] knowledge in ways … not used before to
generate goods and services for the benefit of the poor.”
Finding 3. Providing sufficient resources for program administration is key to program
effectiveness.
The Millennium Alliance presents a clear and strong case for the importance of allocating sufficient
resources for program administration. Through the first two grant rounds, no financial resources
were allocated to support FICCI’s administration systems and processes. The direct results included:
 slow grant distribution process,
 limited MEL activities, and
 frustration amongst the grantees that were interviewed regarding the process.
Once resources were allocated by the funding partners (approximately 10%), FICCI was able to increase
its staffing level and to enhance the capacity of these staff to manage the program, resulting in improved
efficiency and program impact.
A similar pattern was evidenced on the grantees’ side. In early rounds, portions of the grant funds were
33
not specifically allocated to training and administration—limiting grantees’ abilities to successfully
capture and report on the impact of their individual initiatives. A number of grantees also noted that
they did not take advantage of the training programs provided by FICCI free-of-charge because of a lack
of resources for travel and logistics. When working with entrepreneurs and early-stage start-ups,
specific space must be created for training as all resources will naturally be directed towards growing
the business directly – as opposed to building operational expertise.
Programs whose model involved increasing the innovative capability of sub-partners (Dasra, CKS,
ATREE, and CMF) also experienced administrative challenges. For example, CKS READ Alliance spent
significant time and resources to ensure that its smaller sub-grantee NGOs were able to meet the
required level of compliance. In fact, one sub-grantee had to be dropped from the program due to its
inability to conform with the standard. CMF and its sub-grantees noted that M&E reporting presented a
particular challenge as it requires a shift from purely qualitative methods to a more robust method that
included establishing baselines and conducting quantitative analysis—all of which mean more time and
resources. As a research project, ATREE remarked that the reporting requirements did not necessarily
match the nature or timeline of their research activities, so at time the reporting can become a tedious
exercise.
Programs involving a consortium of funders require additional direct resource allocation on the part of
USAID to coordinate and facilitate partnerships. This is especially true for initiatives in which there are
multiple partners who might have differing expectations and requirements with regards to
reporting and ultimately different end goals, such as the Millennium Alliance. Both the TDB and UKAid
noted that the regular monthly meetings of the Strategic Advisory Committee set out clear agendas and
provide significant value and critical opportunities for open dialogue amongst partners. UKAid
specifically noted that out of all its initiatives supporting entrepreneurship, MA is the most visible, the
most flexible, and the most functional in large part due to the strong working relationship amongst the
primary partners. KPMG further noted that the partner ecosystem was a key success factor for the
Technical Assistance to the Government of India for the Swachh Bharat Mission program and specifically that
the regular communication and amongst all partners enabled successful implementation.
Finding 4. Implementing organizations have developed their operational capacity through
partnership with USAID
USAID/India has been successful, especially with regards to programs falling under the IPP, in supporting
the capacity development of implementing partners and their sub-awardees. Each organization
interviewed noted that one of the key benefits of working with USAID is the direct support provided by
the Agency to build the organization’s capacity in Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
(ME&L), especially with regards to understanding and developing key tools and processes, such as logical
frameworks and improved reporting standards. Organizations also noted that USAID’s requirements
with regards to financial management and reporting, while challenging to learn initially, are ultimately
highly beneficial to improved organizational management and ultimately in enabling them to access
additional sources of funding – fueling both effectiveness and sustainability.
In addition to the development of organizational capacity, several implementing partners have
expanded into new areas of operation as a direct result of their USAID partnership.
 ATREE leveraged its core strength in research to offer value-added activities such as enterprise
development for non-timber forest products and improved cookstoves. The partnership with
USAID helped the organization to validate the linkage of scientific research to community action
and income-generating activities for preserving forest resources.
34
 SAATHII was able to move into the role of coordinator and facilitator of partnerships between
the Government of India and the private sector with regards to service improvement and
delivery. Furthermore, the day-to-day operations have improved across the organization due to
regular contact and support from the AOR.
This type of diversification at the organizational level, especially for highly successful implementers,
should not be overlooked as a significant impact of DO3, especially with regards to continued efforts to
localize implementation partners. However, it is important to also note that this diversification does
slow direct beneficiary impact during the initial implementing period as the learning curve can be steep
and can lead to inefficiencies at program start-up.
Millennium Alliance grantees also noted that reporting requirements, though often seen as challenging
initially, are ultimately beneficial to them in showing the efficacy of their product or service. While
showing a return on investment is standard business practice for any enterprise, social or not, the need
to show social impact is often less well-understood – but is a critical component of a successful social
enterprise. Grantees noted that participating in trainings in which USAID and World Bank acted as
subject matter experts, were beneficial, but additional and more direct technical assistance would have
enabled even greater impact.
Finding 5. There is an opportunity to maximize organizational development and better
prepare social enterprises for operating with more diversified funding and in a more
competitive environment.
Training and capacity building related to USAID policies and procedures is critical for successful program
administration. However, for longer-term sustainability, most implementing partners will need additional
support around organizational operations such as financial modeling, marketing and fundraising, and
strategic and business planning. This level of capacity building will be especially critical as USAID moves
beyond direct funding, and organizations must explore diverse funding avenues with the private sector
and other donors.
Social enterprises receiving grants under the MA also consistently noted that they would benefit from
additional capacity building and, more importantly, mentorship from experienced business people. While
grantees can proactively seek out mentorship, there is no systemic process within the MA to link
grantees to this type of support. In working with start-ups and growing businesses, especially social
enterprises, structured opportunities for technical assistance and mentorship should be built into the
program.
Finding 6. The Millennium Alliance’s grant selection process is perceived to be cumbersome
and complex to certain grantees, and improvements in communications and outreach may be
useful in managing applicants’ expectations.
The Millennium Alliance has been successful in seeding local and market-based innovations for
developmental challenges and is viewed by many as an important platform for supporting social
enterprises in India. Through the multiple rounds of grants, FICCI and the MA’s funding partners,
particularly USAID, have been pro-active in learning, adapting, and tweaking its grantmaking approach.
Nevertheless, grantees interviewed indicated that a number of aspects can be further improved:
 The lack of information about the amount of grant funding available for each sector can be
discouraging to applicants.
35
 The absence of a constructive feedback loop to unsuccessful applicants, especially to those who
were invited to submit a full proposal or to a pitching session, as to why their proposed activity
was not selected misses an opportunity to broaden the program’s impact beyond successful
applicants.
 There is unrealistic expectation that true impact at the BOP can be achieved within the 12 to
18-month implementation timeframe of the grant.
 Most grantees would benefit from the opportunity for interim funding and/or direct assistance in
seeking private investment opportunities.
 The grants administration process is overly complex and disbursement of funding can take too
long, especially considering the highly dynamic environment in which many early stage social
enterprises operate.
Finding 7. Programs where an implementing partner acts as an intermediary with and builds
the capacity of the GOI to support its high priority goals are highly effective.
Programs that are demand-driven are more effective and have a greater potential for sustainability. Two
of the programs that have the most significant successes include the Technical Assistance to the
Government of India for Swachh Bharat Mission implemented by KPMG operating as a Program
Management Unit (PMU), and the Promoting Public Private Partnership Stewardship for RMNCH+A Project,
implemented by SAATHI.
Both programs are designed to provide the Government of India, at the national and local levels, with
the tools it needs to successfully implement high profile initiatives in WASH and health system
strengthening respectively. The SAATHI program assisted in developing technology and capacity
solutions for the Ministry of Health that can ultimately be rolled out at the national level, and across
both private and public health systems, all for a modest investment of US$300,000. Both these programs
also represent a high degree of flexibility to respond to GOI needs as they arise. The sustainability of
both initiatives, which cannot be determined at this point in time, is predicated on the assumption that
the GOI will continue to utilize the systems and processes following the end of the program
implementation period.
Conclusion
As a whole, DO3 implementing partners in the sample have effectively implemented their proposed
activities and have met or exceeded their performance targets. Key success factors for their
effectiveness are (i) the capacity building provided by USAID in program administration and financial
management, (ii) the partner’s presence in the local communities in which project activities are being
rolled out; and (iii) the partner’s ability to build relationship with and respond to GOI interests and
needs. Improvements are needed in the areas of knowledge management and communications, cross￾platform and cross-sectoral linkages, and organizational development, to further amplify the effectiveness
of these programs.
EVALUATION QUESTION 4. PROGRAM IMPACT AT THE BOP
Finding 1. There is limited evidence that programs and initiatives classified under DO3 are
significantly more scalable or sustainable than traditional USAID programs in creating change
for the population at the Bottom of the Pyramid.
36
For most programs reviewed under this evaluation, it is too early to determine if there will be long-term
impact on their target populations as a result of the interventions or through the market-based solutions
they put forth. Understanding adoption of new practices over time and the resulting behavior change
will require a longer-time horizon and more rigorous research methods. For Millennium Alliance
grantees, the short-term nature of the grant and the modest funding amount pose challenges in terms of
attribution. Likewise, the lack of a Theory of Change for the majority of the sampled programs also
makes it more challenging to measure impact.
Challenges facing the BOP tend to be systemic. However, the sampled DO3 programs remain, for the
most part, siloed in that they seek to address one specific development challenge. For instance, targeting
Early Grade Reading simply through a program that improves teachers’ capacity and provides additional
resources at the school level may overlook other issues impacting children’s ability to learn – such as
poor nutrition and limited school infrastructure. In another instance, Skymet provides needed climate
and weather forecast information but is unable to provide commodity market price information that are
also demanded by farmers. The majority of the sampled programs did not adopt a truly cross-sectoral
approach to development.
Several of the sampled implementing partners and MA grantees noted that macro-economic issues, such
as demonetization, had a disproportionately negative impact on their success. For initiatives that are
seeking market-based solutions directed at the poor, demonetization was an especially significant and
unanticipated challenge. The resiliency, or lack thereof, of BOP populations should be taken into account
when assessing program impact. Similarly, for agriculture programs, the volatility of climate systems has
an impact on BOP famers – especially those that rely on rain-fed agriculture. It is challenging to fully
account for these risks and how to mitigate them during the program design phase, but they should be
taken into account.
Finding 2: The Millennium Alliance is successful in supporting individual interventions and
acting as a proof of concept, but it is unclear if this support will translate into broader
market-based solutions without longer term support to grantees and/or increased facilitation
of financing options.
While the legitimacy inferred as a Millennium Alliance grantee helped social enterprises to leverage over
$5 million in additional resources across Rounds 1 and 2, it is unclear how this will translate into long￾term scalability for most of the grantees. It is unclear from available documentation what the breakdown
of these funds are across additional grant funding or debt or equity investment, calling into question the
sustainability of the enterprises without continued grant funding – a challenge for many social
enterprises globally.
Finding 3: Most programs have no systematic approach to attracting CSR – practice has been
ad-hoc and opportunistic rather than strategic and integrated into program design and
administration.
Engaging with the private sector is critical to long-term sustainability for many social impact initiatives as
donor funds continue to be reduced. The 2% CSR requirement in India5 provides a prime avenue to
5
In April 2014, a Companies law was enacted whereby businesses with annual revenues of more than INR 10
billion rupees (US$ 131 million) must give away 2% of their net profit to charity. Areas for investments include
education, poverty, gender equality, and hunger.
37
engage the private sector, however, there is no existing strategy to do so in any formal way. Dasra, who
counts over 40 funders as part of its Giving Circle, stated that it preferred to work with family
foundations and private trusts. Even those programs with the direct mandate to engage the private
sector did so on a primarily ad hoc basis or based on existing relationships. For most implementing
partners, especially local NGOs, this is not a sustainable approach to seeking additional support and
funding. Many partners recognize that the number of companies that fall under the CSR requirements is
large but philanthropy remains relatively “new” in India and for most corporations, and limited
enforcement of the rule means companies have little incentives to proactively seek out organizations
with funding needs.
Finding 4: Early engagement with the Government of India is critical to sustainability and
scalability.
For most DO3 programs, engaging with and getting the buy-in of the Indian Government at either the
national, state, or even local level will be critical to continued impact and scalability. Except for those
programs in which engagement with the government is integral to program implementation (SAATHI,
WaterHealth, KPMG PMU) and design, there is little formal strategy to engage the GOI at any level.
This is most evident with regards to the two initiatives targeting Early Grade Reading at government
schools. For the most part, interventions are focused at the individual school level, and it is unclear how
uptake of the interventions will be encouraged more broadly. It is anticipated that schools and
communities will see the benefit of the interventions and take ownership themselves or that the state
government will adopt the practices. However, there is no clear strategy to drive forward this goal.
Finding 5: Gender not consistently or systematically integrated into program implementation
- assumption that targeting female beneficiaries means gender issues are taken into
consideration, but there is limited focus on involving women in program at different levels
Gender inclusion is a key component across all programs surveyed. However, this does not necessarily
translate into a true gender integration strategy. Most programs continue to focus primarily on output￾based indicators with regards to gender and do not assess the behavior change required for true
integration which generally requires a more intentional approach and one that engages males in active
behavior change.
 It is a global challenge for female entrepreneurs to access private investment funding. USAID is
well-placed in India to structure programming in such a way to encourage women
entrepreneur’s improved access to investment opportunities. However, the two programs that
are best placed to do so, the Energy Access Investment Readiness Program and the Millennium
Alliance, do not have specific metrics regarding female entrepreneurs and their inclusion in the
programs. Rather their gender-related targets focus on beneficiary populations.
 Though WaterHealth noted that women-run WaterHealth Centers are on average better
administered than those run by men, there is no clear strategy for engaging more women in this
role, nor are there corresponding impact indicators. Though these water centers have shown
themselves to be cleaner and better run, there is no formal effort to recruit and empower more
women into these positions and only 30-35% of the WaterHealth Centers in the program
geography of Bangalore are operated by women.
Conclusion
It is premature at this point to determine the type of impact that the sampled DO3 activities have in
38
affecting behavior change and improving development outcomes at the BOP. More rigorous research
methods and integration of the Theory of Change by projects are needed to measure impact.
Anecdotally, the siloed nature of the sampled DO3 activities seems to imply that the program’s impact
may not expand beyond the targeted communities, unless there was explicit GOI support for such
intervention at a systemic level.
39
RECOMMENDATIONS
I. PROGRAM DESIGN
Recommendation 1. Partnership Approach: shift to a more focused portfolio of partnerships
to reduce USAID management burden and deepen impact
From 2012-2016, USAID/India has experimented with a range of partnership models and approaches to
promote innovations for the Bottom of the Pyramid. It was a “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach
that effectively signaled to the private sector – for-profit, social enterprises, and non-profit—that USAID
was “open for business.” The testing phase for DO3 should now pave the way for a consolidating and
deepening phase where the Mission can channel its investments into a more targeted portfolio of
activities.
The issue is not which partnership model or approach is “better,” or to standardize or reduce the types
of models being used. Rather, there should be more rigor in assessing the partner’s strengths and
capabilities and their proposed model for reaching the BOP. As each partnership is unique, it is
important for USAID to continue its practice of designing exploratory meetings with partners that start
from the basis of shared value and the value addition that each party brings to the partnership.
To reduce administrative burden, USAID should consider working with strong backbone organizations
that can simultaneously facilitate program administration amongst the local organizations undertaking
actual implementation and build their capacity to scale and continue work beyond the initial program
timeline. Ideally, organizations providing backbone support to complex partnerships should have a pre￾existing understanding of USAID policies and procedures and should have strong capabilities with
regards to organizational capacity building, with sufficient resources reserved for the backbone entity to
provide the training and support needed. This will enable USAID to act in the role of a technical advisor
as opposed to a program administrator.
Recommendation 2. Further enhance MA’s grant selection process and strengthen its
capacity for entrepreneurship development
While the MA platform has already instituted substantial adjustments to the grant selection process with
each round of competition, further improvements to increase transparency and impact include:
 Provide the opportunity for applicants to receive feedback on their failed grant application,
specifically those who were invited to submit a full application or to pitch their intervention.
There should also be better communication regarding the amount awarded where there is a
significant difference with the original amount requested.
 Create a feedback loop so lessons from each round are incorporated into subsequent rounds
 Include more business and subject matter experts in the selection panel and engage them earlier
in the evaluation process so their perspective on the technical merits and feasibility of the
innovation can be fed into the selection decision.
 Consider more targeted and larger investments in a few initiatives over a longer time frame. For
example, design grant rounds around specific themes, regions/sites, etc.
40
 Invest in an incubation period prior to formal grant award to ensure social entrepreneurs
develop a viable business model from the start.
Recommendation 3. Integrate entrepreneurship and business strengthening into program
design
Private sector engagement is more than just financial support. As mentioned previously, USAID’s role
as a convener, facilitator, and knowledge partner sets it apart from other donor organizations. Besides
funding innovations, USAID/India should invest more resources into promoting entrepreneurship and
managerial capabilities of social enterprises and start-ups, leveraging other in-country entrepreneurship
efforts and platforms such as PACE (Partnering to Accelerate Entrepreneurship).
The current cohort of social enterprises and start-ups is often more focused on the R&D and marketing
aspects and sometimes neglect the fundamentals of business management – financial management,
personnel management, operations, etc. The challenges faced by MA grantees and IPP implementing
partners in meeting USAID report requirements are evidence of the limited operational capacity of
these enterprises. If these enterprises are to evolve, they will need to have increased bandwidth to plan
and manage expansion, develop diverse relationships with donors, investors, government, etc.—all of
whom will have different expectations and requirements. This means having the appropriate
organizational structure, staffing, and systems to respond. Future partnerships should be designed to
support not only the intervention/innovation but the organizational development needs for the business
to thrive.
Recommendation 4. Ensure consistent integration of Theory of Change and M&E into
program design
USAID/India should ensure that during the co-creation process, partner organizations are able to define
and communicate the Theory of Change for their program. This is particularly important if the program
is to demonstrate impact at the Bottom of the Pyramid. There should be some reflection at the design
stage on how the program’s objectives and approach would lead to benefits, change, and gains for the
target beneficiaries. Beyond the one-off M&E training already provided to implementing organizations,
there is a need for continuous support and feedback from program design through implementation. The
Mission should consider a buy-in to central level M&E mechanisms where dedicated technical expertise
can be made available to guide and support implementing organizations throughout the entire process.
Recommendation 5. Ensure consistent gender integration throughout DO3 activities
Partnership design should ensure that gender is integrated at every level of the program—from program
staff, to tools and materials being developed, to program beneficiaries. A gender analysis should be
integrated upfront to evaluate organizational policies and procedures, technical competency of staff,
design and implementation of activities, and project results outcomes (See Annex F for a country case
example). Reporting should go beyond disaggregating data by gender to include qualitatively analysis on
issues related to gender empowerment and equality. Indicators and targets should include an analysis of
the results, especially when targets were not met, and what actions can be taken to improve the results.
USAID/India can facilitate a collaborative training workshop for AORs and partner organizations on
gender mainstreaming, and/or hold a learning event so that implementing partners can exchange
experiences and challenges around this issue.
41
II. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Recommendation 1: Create intentional opportunities for greater knowledge sharing, virtual,
and in-person networking among DO3 implementing partners, and between DO3 platforms
and more traditional programs.
Across all programs surveyed, there was a clear request for greater opportunities to network with
other implementers (or grantees on the part of the MA). USAID should consider structuring formal
opportunities for implementing partners to meet and share their successes and challenges. These can be
structured across sectors in a specific geography or they can be sector-specific but with a broader
geographic focus.
In addition to in-person meetings and convenings, all programs would benefit from a virtual platform on
which to communicate, share best practices, and learn from USAID. A platform such as this could
further serve as a means to provide on-demand trainings to implementing partners on USAID
compliance, policies and procedures in line with the Agency’s overall USAID Forward initiative.
Recommendation 2: Develop a regular schedule of trainings on USAID policies, procedures,
and compliance.
A number of partners noted that while
participating in USAID-facilitated trainings
was beneficial, they were not offered on a
consistent enough basis and they did not
allow for a range of employees to participate.
Trainings should be offered on a regular basis
and/or a Training of Trainers program should
be initiated to create champions at individual
organizations.
Recommendation 3: Engage the private
sector as pro bono consultants and
mentors to build the capacity of
beneficiary social enterprises and
implementing partners alike.
The vast pool of managerial talent and human
capital that exists within private companies
inside and outside of India is an untapped
resource that USAID/India should explore.
Employees from private sector companies
bring a wealth of expertise to bear with
regards to common challenges faced by
social enterprises and non-profits alike. As is
evidenced by the Energy Access Investment
Readiness Program and comments by a
number of MA grantees, access to this type of support can be game-changing.
Global Health Corporate Champions
The Global Health Corporate Champions is an activity of
the U.S. Agency for International Development’s
(USAID) Global Health Fellows Program II, which is
implemented by the Public Health Institute and addresses
immediate and emerging human capital needs in the
global health sphere. This innovative, collaborative
approach brings together the diverse perspective and
talent of the public, private, and social sectors to address
high priority health issues.
Thirteen professionals from SAP, The Dow Chemical
Company, PIMCO and WE Communications spent four
consecutive weeks during February and March 2017 in
Accra, Ghana, providing pro bono support to four local
clients – all current or recent USAID implementing
partners, focused on key public health issues: Coalition
of NGOs in Water and Sanitation (CONIWAS), the
Nneka Youth Foundation, Hope for Future Generations
(HFFG), and the Ghana Registered Midwives Association
(GRMA). Teams of 3-4 participants worked with host
clients to develop long-term strategic plans, alternative
sources of funding, integrated communications and
sound information technology approaches.
42
In addition to the multinational corporations with pro bono consulting programs, a number of Indian
businesses either currently have or are in the process of developing programs. These programs are
highly cost effective as the private sector partner generally pays its employees’ expenses. They also
create avenues for future engagement and partnership with the sponsoring companies by creating
internal champions for the good work being done by host clients. There are existing mechanisms for
engagement, including the recently released VISP APS and the Global Health Corporate Champions (see
text box above) that can be used to engage private sector human capital.
Recommendation 4: Explore opportunities to fund platform programs that address multiple
community-challenges across USAID sectors.
As previously noted, the issues that negatively impact the population at the Bottom of the Pyramid are
systemic – challenges in accessing sufficient nutrition, which negatively impacts children’s ability to learn,
are often driven by a lack of economic opportunity or poor agronomic practices. Addressing only one
piece of this system will not lead to sustainable outcomes for the community. USAID has the
opportunity through the platform model to work with a number of local organizations that bring
different types of expertise to the table to address the complex challenges facing the Bottom of the
Pyramid. The focus on working with and through local organizations will lower barriers to impact and
will contribute to continued localization of programming. It will also enable USAID to serve as an
incubator for these organizations and support them in building their operational capacity.
Recommendation 5: Maximize opportunities for implementing partners and grantees to
network with the GOI and integrate GOI engagement strategies from the beginning of
program implementation.
Successful engagement with and adoption of interventions by the Government of India will be critical to
the ability of DO3 program activities to reach the BOP. Creating formal showcases of programs and
facilitating listening sessions between representatives from the GOI and implementing partners will ease
communication and will encourage a supply and demand approach. See Annex G for a country case
example.
III. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEXT CDCS
While the original scope of the evaluation does not require the team to make specific recommendations
regarding the next CDCS, the following are some factors that the Mission may wish to consider as part
of its deliberations and planning.
Recommendation 1: Both the IPP and the MA are valid mechanisms to test innovative
partnership and intervention models and should be continued in future CDCS
Though the assessment did not allow for direct comparison of DO3 activities against more traditional
program approaches and funding mechanisms, it is apparent that activities undertaken under both IPP
and MA drive forward a number of objectives which are important to the Mission in India and USAID
more broadly, including increased localization of programs and efforts to test innovations that could be
scaled in other geographies. For the programs under the IPP, the aspect of co-creation and actively
engaging local implementers makes for programming that is innately more responsive to the challenges
43
and opportunities inherent to local challenges. Because IPP models require local implementers to
operate within the structures of a USAID-funded program, it further enables their organizational
development, making them more efficient and sustainable over time. Similarly, the MA seeks to find local
solutions to local challenges that engage a market-based approach. The partnerships with other bi-lateral
development agencies, Indian entities (i.e. FICCI and TDB), and private sector players in the
development space make it a potential model for other geographies that seek to distribute risk, improve
cross-sector partnerships, and empower local entities.
Recommendation 2: Integrate planning for sustainability from day one and consider longer
term funding for successful initiatives.
To ensure the sustainability of platforms, planning must begin from the moment of program launch.
Consideration should be given if there will be a continuing entity, if so what its role will be, and how the
partners will benefit from this type of central administrative entity. Certainly, small organizations would
benefit from shared services that could be provided by a central platform organization, but it is critical
to understand where they see the value and then to work towards creating a format that works for all
parties.
Recommendation 3: Actively seek to better understand how implementing partners can
provide value to the Indian private sector and their CSR engagement strategies, especially in
relation to the 2% Law.
As with the public sector, a clear and open dialogue is critical to understanding how USAID
programming can provide added value to corporations. USAID should continue to participate actively in
CSR conferences and other convenings where the private sector will be present – this should be as
much of a listening exercise as an opportunity to present ongoing programs. It is also critical that the
learnings from these convenings be disseminated within the Mission through cross-functional knowledge
sharing sessions and other means as appropriate. USAID should also take advantage of its reputation as
a strong convener in India to host its own sessions – focused on specific geographies or topics as
appropriate.
It is also critical to understand where the private sector seeks to invest. USAID should continue to scan
the market landscape to understand which private sector companies – both Indian and multinational –
are engaged in or interested in areas that align with USAID’s funding priorities. For example, a number
of multinational corporations, including JPMorgan Chase, IBM, and SAP have structured much of their
CSR strategy around workforce development – targeting different strata from early and secondary
education, through technical and vocational training. Even if there is no direct overlap since USAID’s
education funding is focused on early grade reading, it is possible to explore complementary approaches
that can help improve education outcomes at a systemic level.
Successful partnership with the private sector will be a result of both partners bringing their unique
expertise to the table and building on that to create greater value. USAID/India should consider
developing an organizational strategy for engagement with clear targets and performance indicators. A
similar approach can be utilized at the program level, but should be developed as early as possible in the
implementation period.
44
Recommendation 4: Continue to foster a culture of innovation and risk-taking across all
offices within the Mission, where staff are incentivized to learn from innovations that do not
reach their objective.
USAID/India has been at the forefront of integrating the STIP approach into their CDCS. The Millennium
Alliance and innovation ecosystems platforms like PAHAL, SELCO, and New Ventures have effectively
used market-based mechanisms and leveraged donor funding to engage and strengthen social enterprises
in India. In the team’s discussion with Mission staff, it is clear that there are differing perspectives on
what defines innovation and the level of acceptable risk-taking among those in the program office and
the technical offices.
The very nature of innovation is that it does not always succeed or it succeeds only in specific
environments. Failure of interventions to reach their goal is a challenge for any donor, but the key to
truly fostering innovation is developing a comfort with the potential for failure and creating the
infrastructure to learn from these failures. If USAID/India’s strategy is to foster an organizational culture
that is based on innovation and private sector partnerships, the right incentives structure needs to be in
place. The Mission could consider reserving a portion of funding for a pure innovation fund with the
expressed understanding that up to a certain percentage (80%) of the ideas tested could not reach their
targets. This could be done within the framework of an ongoing or existing partnership model, and is
not meant to encourage an unstructured approach to partner selection. Making the learnings from these
activities broadly available across not only the Mission, but across USAID and beyond will help to
further establish the Agency as forward-thinking and innovative.
A-1
ANNEXES
A-2
ANNEX A: MINI CASE STUDIES OF SELECT DO3 ACTIVITIES
Mini case study #1: Facilitating Innovation within Public Sector using Private Sector
Expertise
Implementing Partner: Solidarity and Action against the HIV/AIDS Infection (SAATHII)
Project Name: Sambhuya—Promoting Public Private Partnership (PPP) Stewardship
for RMNCH+A
Implementation date: June 2015- May 2019
Total Award Amount: $4,992,251 – of which USAID funds $ 4,709,935 and SAATHII’s
leverage is $282,316
Organization background:
Founded in 2000, SAATHII’s mission is to strengthens the capacities of individuals and organizations
working on HIV prevention, care, support and treatment, and sexual and reproductive health
interventions in India through information dissemination, networking, operational research, advocacy,
training and other technical assistance services.
Project description:
Project Sambhuya aims to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality and increase in uptake of modern
contraception through strengthening of government and private sector stewardship. The program has
five activity areas:
1. Improve quality at 1,000 facilities through linking patient feedback to quality improvement
systems
2. Improve the quality of family health (FH) services provided by informal and AYUSH providers
3. Demonstrate and disseminate effective engagement of private providers in improving access to
quality antenatal care services at public health facilities
4. Demonstrate a sustainable model of improving access to quality FH services in a group of tea
gardens in Assam
5. Develop and roll out a technology based solution for planning and monitoring of FH programs
Key achievements (as of June 2017):
 The Mera Aspataal patient feedback application was rolled out to a total of 800 public and
private health facilities, including 150 hospitals. Of the 19.5 million patients who have visited
these hospitals, 5.9 million had a valid phone number that could be reached by the application,
and 0.6 million provided feedback.
 Based on the successful adoption of Mera Aspataal, the World Bank’s Output-Based Contract
with health facilities will incorporate the Mera data as one of the markers for vendor payment.
 Provided onsite support to 2-3 states for roll-out of the Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva
Abhiyan (PMSMA) program, in which private health practitioners volunteer to provide ante-natal
care (ANC) at public health facilities facing a human resources gap. Piloted information
technology-based application for tracking and follow up of high-risk pregnant women.
A-3
Key take-aways:
 The Sambhuya cooperative agreement was designed to provide a flexible platform through
which USAID and SAATHII can respond to the emergent needs of the MOH. In a way, the
program has broad objectives and operates more like an IQC or LWA (without the associates).
 SAATHI provides human capital and supports the development of appropriate structures at the
institutional/governmental level, with the private sector tasked with taking programs to scale
 Initiatives are demand-driven from the GOI perspective so the government has really taken
ownership to build a demonstration model on a small scale that can eventually be rolled out
more broadly. For instance, for Mera Aspataal, the state government paid for staff training and
materials and in the future, the MOH will take over the cost of direct calls to patients.
 SAATHII has effectively played the role of a neutral third-party facilitator
 Each of the five activity areas entailed a separate process of co-creation so the level of
engagement required by USAID and SAATHII is quite intensive at the beginning of the program.
However, SAATHII maintains a very lean operation and flat organizational structure so the
estimated cost of each activity areas is only around US$300,000.
A-4
Mini case study #2: Planning for Sustainability – Lessons Learned from two e-Learning
Program
Implementing
Organization
CLT Planet Read (PR)
Project Name e-Patashale: Low-cost innovative
e-content for STEM K-12
READ Alliance
Funding Window MA IPP, sub-awardee to CKS
Implementation Date September 2013 – June 2016 July 2016-July 2018
Total Award Amount US$215,000 (INR 1.4 cores)a US$ 206,000 (INR 1.24 cores)
a Using an exchange rate of US$ 1 = INR 60
Project Description:
Both CLT and Planet Read are testing models using simple technology solution as a platform for
enhancing learning outcomes – CLT focuses on STEM while Planet Read focuses on early grade reading.
CLT received a grant from the Millennium Alliance to scale up its e-Patashale model, a STEM curriculum
using low-cost localized digital courseware for grades K-12. The content is modular, consisting of short
videos lasting 8-10 minutes each, accompanied by worksheet and lesson plans. Materials are meant to be
complementary to existing textbooks, so teachers are expected to use e-Patashale alongside traditional
blackboard teaching. The technology is simple Plug & play – only hardware needed is a solar- powered
TV, wireless mouse, Android device and SD Card for offline environment.
Planet Read specializes in the use of audio visuals aids to enhance learning - use storytelling, role playing,
and song-based approach. Planet Read received a two-year proof of concept grant through the READ
Alliance managed by CKS to develop instructional materials for classroom teaching focused on early
literacy. PR partnered (through a sub-grant) with SAAD (Society for All Around Development), a
collaborative of 9000 teachers which manages childhood centers and places teachers within schools all
over India. Rollout is done through 2 models:
 Direct implementation of instructional materials - dedicated classroom within a school,
equipped with a flat screen TV and taught by a SAAD teacher
 Outreach partners - make content available to other organizations working in the early reading
space and allow them to integrate into their own work without any conditions or direct
involvement.
Key Achievements:
Planet Read is on its second year of implementation, with the first year focused on content development. CLT
recently concluded its grant with MA.
CLT Planet Read
K12 curricula reaching 300,000 children, 10,000
videos, over 12 e-books
Created 40 modules rolled out in 6 schools in
Delhi
Improved learning outcomes:
 70% improvement in student attentiveness
 65% improvement in recall
 Increased participation by children in the
classroom
 Improved student attendance and
enrollment
A-5
 72% improvement in overall class
experience, including teachers
 Math: Over 70% of students are able to
recall terminologies; 90% of the students
developed the skill of using geometrical
instrument accurately and problem
solving.
 Science - 65% are able to understand
concepts from diagrams and experiments
and can answer questions about them.
 New partnerships with Menda Foundation,
SELCO Foundation (solar-powered
devices), Rotary Districts Himatsingka
seide, Boond Technologies, and Digital
Empowerment Foundation
Key Take-aways:
 CLT and Planet Read both implement technology-enabled solutions to improve quality of
education in government schools. The programs funded by USAID (through grants) are similar
in terms of funding level, and program duration. However, CLT is clearly on a defined path
towards sustainability whereas Planet Read remains at an experimental stage.
 The key is that CLT had a strategy and vision for post-grant funding. With MA funding, CLT was
able to accelerate content development and have a tested model ready to be shopped to new
partners. Through the MA grant, CLT had already formed partnership with SELCO to provide
solar-powered TVs to the targeted schools. The organization was able to further leverage this
relationship to attract additional new partners. CLT is now expanding its product into several
states outside of its home base of Karnataka with these new partners.
 Planet Read’s grant through CKS focused purely on the proof of concept and the randomized
control trial, with no clear plans for future iteration, replication or scale-up of the approach.
A-6
Mini case study #3: Entrepreneurship Development and Investment Facilitation for Energy
Access Firms
Implementing Partner: New Ventures-Regain Paradise Consulting/Santa Clara
University’s Global Social Benefit Institute
Project Name: Energy Access Investment Readiness Program
Implementation Date: October 2015- September 2018
Total Award Amount: $1,541,659–of which USAID funds $765,148 and the prime
GSBI/Santa Clara will leverage $776,511
Organization background:
The GSBI is the signature programme of the Center for Science, Technology, and Society at
Santa Clara University (SCU). GSBI helps mission-driven enterprises build, sustain, and increase the
reach and impact of their businesses. In addition to training and support, GSBI matches program
participants with mentors from both the Silicon Valley and the respective participant's local environment
in order to ensure an appropriate transfer of knowledge.
New Ventures India (NVI) was incubated by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and provides business
development services to environmentally focused small and medium enterprises. NVI was transferred
by WRI to the boutique cleantech consulting firm – Regain Paradise Research Consulting (RPC).
Project description:
The program seeks to enable small businesses in India to supply clean energy solutions that will provide
1 million Indians living in areas not served by the national grid with access to modern electricity. These
incubation and acceleration services will enable these businesses to access capital for business assets,
inventory and other working capital needs, and consumer finance for their customers. The project
partners will help the company to develop bankable business plans to obtain their initial financing, and
strengthen their operations and management to scale up their investments. The team will also train
financial institutions on appropriate credit evaluation practices, and on investment banking services that
target socially motivated investors (one partner will bring in $5 million in capital raised from these
“impact investors”). The BDS activities will facilitate a total of US$ 41 million in debt and equity, and
enable the entrepreneurs/ventures to scale and sustain their business models.
Key achievements (as of Q6 of program implementation):
● Approximately 168,000 people have new or improved access to clean energy
● $4.5 million in financing for six enterprises - $700,000 in grants funding, $900,000 in equity
investments, and $2.9 million in debt.
● 18 companies have been mentored and are deemed investment ready in the near future
● 10-11 are well-placed to begin seeking investment opportunities in the near future.
Key take-aways:
● Program implementation was delayed due to shifting priorities at USAID. This included
extended periods of limited or no communication followed by urgent requests for information
which made for a disjointed program design phase.
● Neither implementing partner had significant experience with USAID funding and there was a
significant learning curve to understand expectations, especially around monitoring and
evaluation and reporting.
A-7
● The program engages alumni of GSBI as mentor to the social enterprises seeking investment in
the development of their business plans and to prepare them for investment readiness – this is a
clear differentiator from the Millennium Alliance approach which is much more ad hoc.
● The combination of the deep market knowledge of New Ventures and the curriculum and
knowledge of the global investment landscape is a successful partnership model.
● Macroeconomic challenges (a highly dynamic global investment environment, demonetization in
India) and shifting strategy on the part of the Government of India have required that the
program change its approach and the types of firms it targets – this has delayed immediate
impact to some extent, but will likely not impact overall program success.
● The original program design had an advocacy component, however, the programmatic focus on
building the capacity of the program-supported enterprises and facilitating their path to
investment has enabled the implementing partners to focus specifically on the needs of the
enterprises and enabling them to reach their investment potential.
A-8
ANNEX B: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) five-year (2012-2017) Country Development Cooperation
Strategy (CDCS) reflects the transformation of the USAID-India relationship from a traditional donor-recipient to a
peer-to-peer partnership whereby India and the U.S. collaborate to solve global development challenges together.
Through this approach, USAID focuses on catalyzing new partnerships and scaling proven solutions globally. The
USAID/India CDCS Results Framework can be found via:
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1861/India_CDCS.pdf
USAID/India aims to achieve its overarching CDCS goal through the following two sub-goals and four Development
Objectives (DOs):
Sub-Goal 1: Indian systems strengthened in priority sectors
 DO 1: Increase the capacity of India’s health system to improve the health of vulnerable populations in
India.
 DO 2: Accelerate India’s transition to a low emissions economy.
Sub-Goal 2: Indian innovations accelerate development outcomes in India and globally
 DO 3: Development innovations impact people's lives at the base of the pyramid (BOP) in a range of
sectors in India.
 DO 4: Innovations proven in India increasingly adopted in other countries.
The third DO of the CDCS is the subject of this evaluation. DO3 of the USAID/India CDCS seeks to impact people’s
lives at the base of the economic pyramid (BOP) in India through Alliances, partnership platforms, and other
mechanisms consequently created to identify, test, and scale development innovations tested (proven) in India.
DO3 activities seek to build sectoral and thematic partnership platforms and alliances in the areas of health,
climate change, education, and food security to identify, test, and scale development innovations with the
potential for “game-changing” impact in India.
2 BACKGROUND
DO3 of the CDCS seeks to harness India’s development innovations laboratory and hub – along with the growing
resources and expertise among local Indian institutions and partners in the private, public, and non-profit sectors –
to develop and scale development innovations that can benefit the lives of Indians living at the BOP.
The results of DO3 activities directly impact the USAID/India CDCS Sub-Goal 2: Indian innovations accelerate
development outcomes in India and globally. The transformation of USAID/India’s partnership with India should be
reflected by an increase in the number and nature of Indian proven innovations designed to tackle global
development challenges that are (i) transferred and (ii) have a measurable development impact as well as the
growth of Indian- and U.S.-supported efforts to solve development challenges outside of India, based directly on
the innovative solutions identified, tested, and scaled under DO3 activities.
Under DO3, USAID/India supports activities that enable private and public-sector partners to collaborate, and
contribute significant shared resources (1:1 match minimum), to identify “game-changing” solutions to
development problems, and then test, diffuse and scale them to benefit BOP populations in India.
Approaches implemented under DO3 demonstrate several unique features. These include:
 Work with non-traditional actors, like venture capitalists, social entrepreneurs, investors, financial service
providers, and the Indian diaspora;
 Collaboration that involves more co-financing and co-leadership of activities with local partners;
 Emphasis on achieving development impact and outcomes through innovation;
A-9
 Greater use of partnership platforms and alliances that work across sectors and combine traditional and
non-traditional actors;
 Greater USAID engagement in partnership development and global outreach; and
 “Open-sourcing” the development process by connecting the world’s major development challenges to
development problem solvers all over India.
2.1 Description of the Portfolio
Within the Mission's CDCS, four offices share responsibility for DO3, “Development innovations impact people's
lives at the base of the pyramid (BOP) in a range of sectors in India". Intermediate Results for DO3 are as follows:
 IR3.1: Effective health solutions identified, demonstrated, and scaled
 IR3.2: Low carbon innovations tested and scaled
 IR3.3: Agriculture innovations identified, tested and scaled
 R3.4: Education innovations in early grade reading identified, tested and scaled
The development hypothesis underpinning all activities related to DO3 can be summarized as follows:
“By identifying evidence-based innovative approaches, products, and/or systems, and combining these with Indian
financial and intellectual capital, while partnering directly with and under the leadership of Indian organizations,
USAID/India can deliver development results faster, cheaper, more effectively, with broader impact, and more
sustainably in the areas of health, education, climate change, and food security”. Additional details can be
obtained by reading the Mission's CDCS.
A complete list of activities undertaken by each office under DO3 platform is provided as Attachment A.
2.2 Implementation Mechanism Supporting DO3 Activities:
To achieve the development objective of using development innovations to impact the lives of people at the BOP,
USAID is currently supporting two initiatives to encourage partnerships with the private sector. These are (1) the
India Partnership Program, and (2) the Millennium Alliance. However, there are few additional activities that are
being implemented which don’t belong to these two mechanisms but are under the DO3 portfolio.
2.2.1 The India Partnership Program (IPP) - 1.0
An approach that is being used by USAID/India to facilitate, catalyze and support partnerships with the private
sector is the India Partnership Program (IPP). An India Partnership is a public private sector collaboration focused
on overcoming critical development challenges through innovations and creative ideas that can be rigorously
tested, shared, and potentially scaled in India and/or abroad. The goal of the collaboration is to tackle
development challenges using an approach or innovation that can be replicated and sustained leading to
measurable improvements in development outcomes. Innovations are defined not by their novelty, but by their
potential to achieve significant development outcomes versus existing alternatives.
Ideally, USAID/India seeks to catalyze Indian-funded and Indian-conceived innovations designed in response to
development challenges and implemented by Indian organizations. This program supports partnerships in areas
where USAID and the partners share common development objectives for India, such as access to quality health
care, clean water and sanitation, education, clean energy, food security and nutrition, triangular cooperation,
gender and financial inclusion. The partnership activities identified through IPP and implemented in India fall under
the DO3 portfolio.
The goal of the IPP 1.0 is to identify and partner with organizations and institutions that bring innovative ideas and
resources of at least a 1:1 match to address jointly defined development challenges. Matching resources may
include money, technologies, experience, expertise or other assets that applicants can demonstrate as beneficial
to tackling and resolving a development challenge. Through this, USAID/India considers a wide range of
A-10
partnership approaches, whether Indian financed and implemented or otherwise, in order to achieve its
development objectives.
2.2.2 The Millennium Alliance: Inspiring Innovations, Sharing Solutions
The Millennium Alliance (MA) is a multi--million dollar India--U.S. public-private partnership that seeks to leverage
Indian creativity, expertise and capital to source and scale locally developed innovations that can benefit
vulnerable populations across India and the world. USAID, in collaboration with Indian partner organizations, links
Indian innovators with seed financing in five major development sectors: Health, Education, Agriculture, Water and
Sanitation and Clean Energy.
The MA platform is a joint initiative of USAID, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)
and the Government of India’s Technology Development Board (TDB) in the Ministry of Science and Technology.
The MA has grown from three founding partners in 2012 to now having eight partners, including UKAID, ICCO
Cooperation, ICICI Foundation, Wadhwani Initiative for Sustainable Health (WISH) Foundation and the World Bank.
What started as a $7.5 million initiative is now about $25 million. The program duration is from May 2012 – May
2017. The MA has three objectives, which are to identify breakthrough innovations, to rigorously test and evaluate
innovative solutions and select those that have the maximum developmental impact in a cost efficient and
effective manner; and to help scale innovations with wider societal appeal to a level that reaches and affects the
needy population. MA provides multi-tier funding. Stage 1 funding is for projects with proof of concept (PoC). The
stage 2 is for projects that have demonstrated success at pilot level or small-scale stage. Stage 3 is for projects that
have credible and rigorous evidence of development impacts at significant scale. So far 63 awards have been made
for stages 1 and 2 of funding through MA platform. For further details on MA, please visit
http://www.millenniumalliance.in/.
2.2.3 Other Activities under DO3
There are a few activities under DO3 which don’t fall under the two above mechanisms, but come under the broad
DO3 umbrella. These activities seek to impact people’s lives at the BoP in India by supporting alliances and building
partnerships in the areas of health, education and forestry.
3 PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
Given that USAID/India is more than mid-way through its strategy, the Mission seeks to evaluate the extent to
which partnerships have effectively6 achieved development impact based upon agreed performance measures or
have defined innovation progressing through the four (4) stages/steps of the “innovation pipelines”. The
evaluation will also identify enablers and barriers to achieving impact of USAID’s partnerships and review
efficiency7 and offer options and recommendations for making USAID partnerships more effective and efficient.
Overall, the mid-term evaluation will conduct an analysis of the extent to which each model is contributing to the
results of DO3. In addition, based on the available evidence, the evaluation will document best practices and
challenges of the partnership models and suggest a framework for strengthening and measuring development
impact going forward. The mid-term evaluation will focus on the following:
 Assess the progress toward achieving the expected results of the USAID/India DO3 program (2012 - 2016).
 Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of program design, implementation, and sustainability
mechanisms.
6 A measure of the extent to which the partnership activities attain the objectives for which they were formed.
7 Efficiency measures the outputs -- qualitative and quantitative -- in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term
which signifies the intervention uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results.
A-11
 Identify lessons learned and proposed actionable recommendations to guide implementation for the
remaining period of the program to improve performance by suggesting a framework for how to
strengthen and measure such partnerships in future models.
3.1 Evaluation Questions
This mid-term evaluation will assess the relevance, effectiveness, and impact of the partnerships, by addressing
the following questions:
a) Relevance: Is the USAID’s Science, Technology and Innovation and Partnership (STIP) approach consistent with
the overall objective and the attainment of its DO3 immediate results? i. Has there been a change in assumptions
that the Mission made at the time of CDCS: does USAID/India need to evolve its model in light of this? ii. In
answering the question, the evaluation should focus primarily on analyzing the development impact of innovative
solutions catalyzed or supported by the IPP 1.0 and the MA partnership mechanisms in each of the sectors
addressed.
b) Efficiency: To what extent has the intervention been cost effective? What factors are influencing any particular
discrepancies?
c) Effectiveness: To what extent are the partnership approach and the interventions resulting from the
innovations identified through IPP 1.0, MA and other partnership activities contributing towards accelerating
improved development outcomes in health care, child survival, clean water and sanitation, education, clean
energy, food security and nutrition?
i. Is the development of platforms and alliances the most cost effective and efficient approach to
identifying, testing, and scaling Indian development innovations?
ii. Has USAID/India identified the most effective platforms and forms of partnership for identifying and
scaling up innovations? Is USAID/India serving as an effective development innovations hub?
iii. Are there systems in place or being implemented to sustain and scale up the partnerships after USAID
support ends? How is the alliance contributing to each partner’s desired result?
d) Impact:8 What signs are there of changes associated with target interventions in health care, child survival,
clean water and sanitation, education, clean energy, food security and nutrition, e.g., and what changes do people
living at the bottom of the pyramid and other stakeholders attribute to the interventions?
i. What signs are there of changes associated with target interventions in health care, child survival, clean
water and sanitation, education, clean energy, food security and nutrition? E.g., what changes do people
living at the BoP and other stakeholders attribute to the interventions?
ii. What has attracted the private sector partners to USAID? What have they found as facilitators and
barriers in engaging with USAID? Has the co-financing under IPP also leveraged the technical expertise,
experiences and efficiencies of private sector partners?
iii. In answering this question, the evaluator should also critically analyze the data to determine any
recommendations that can be provided to improve the effectiveness of the two partnership platforms
and their management by USAID/India.
3.2 Audience and Intended Uses
The audience of the evaluation report will be the USAID/India Mission, and specifically all the technical offices; the
Asia Bureau; and the implementing partners. USAID will use the report to make design changes (as appropriate)
and mid-course corrections to its current strategy, and to share lessons learned with key stakeholders and other
donors.
8 The positive and negative changes produced by the partnerships, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.
A-12
Finally, lessons learned from this evaluation will inform follow-on portfolio activities to be designed in the coming
years.
4 SCOPE
The evaluation will cover all the DO3 activities under the current Food Security, Health, Clean Energy and
Partnership for Innovation office portfolios since 2012. The Contractor must develop an appropriate methodology
for answering the evaluation questions and must execute the methodology to effectively and fully evaluate DO3.
4.1 Evaluation Design
The Contractor must recommend the most appropriate evaluation design and methodology based upon the goals
and questions of the evaluation. This evaluation must first focus on the development of a Theory of Change. A
theory of change (TOC) explains why we think certain actions will produce desired change in a given context. The
TOC will serve as the basis to measure USAID’s contribution to the DO3 landscape. In doing so, the Contractor
must examine the critical assumptions underlying the TOC, as well as other actors and factors that may have
contributed to the overall goal.
This performance evaluation must, to the extent possible, adhere to the USAID Evaluation Policy
(http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation) guidelines for more rigorous evaluation, using mixed methods that incorporate
both quantitative and qualitative methods.
USAID requires that the Contractor complete the following table as part of its detailed evaluation design.
Evaluation question Data source Data collection
method (including
sampling
methodology, where
applicable)
Data analysis
method
1. Is USAID’s Science, Technology and
Innovation and Partnership (STIP)
approach consistent with the overall
objective and the attainment of its
DO3 immediate results?
2. To what extent has the
intervention been cost effective?
What factors are influencing any
particular discrepancies?
3. To what extent are the partnership
approach and the interventions
resulting from the innovations
identified through IPP 1.0 and MA,
contributing towards accelerating
improved development outcomes in
health care, child survival clean water
and sanitation, education, clean
energy, food security and nutrition?
4. What signs are there of changes
associated with target interventions
in health care, child survival, clean
water and sanitation, education,
clean energy, food security and
nutrition, e.g., what changes do
A-13
Evaluation question Data source Data collection
method (including
sampling
methodology, where
applicable)
Data analysis
method
people living at the bottom of the
pyramid and other stakeholders
attribute to the interventions?
Should the Contractor deem it necessary to collect quantitative data using a sample survey, the Contractor must
include a section in the evaluation plan that clearly depicts how the survey will be conducted, the sample frame to
be used, sample size, quality assurance, etc.
The Contractor must review documentation provided by USAID and the partners, and any relevant secondary
research they collect (especially on partnership approach). An instrument must be developed to codify and
organize data from the document review for analysis according to the evaluation questions.
The Contractor is also expected to begin constructing the overall TOC during the desk review period. The
Contractor will be accountable for ensuring data analysis methods are in line with best practices. For both
quantitative and qualitative data, the Contractor must articulate methodologies for analyzing collected
information, including any statistical software programs to be used.
4.2 Document Review and Data Collection
4.2.1 Document Review
Upon award, the Contractor will be provided relevant background documents for it to conduct a document review.
Documents include:
a) USAID/India Country Development and Cooperation Strategy
b) USAID/Indian Development Objective 3 Project Appraisal Document
c) USAID/India Health, Energy, Education and Clean Energy strategies
d) Millennium Alliance program description
e) PAD Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
f) PAD level baseline data
g) Project Descriptions and Modifications
h) Project Work Plans
i) Quarterly Reports
j) Annual Reports
k) India Partnership Program (IPP) documents
l) Budget and financial reports
m) Baseline surveys and formative research
n) Project performance data
4.2.2 Data Collection
The Contractor must complete the evaluation using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analytical
methods. Approaches to collect quantitative and qualitative data include, but are not limited to:
 Document Reviews
 Surveys/Questionnaires
 Key Informant Interviews with implementing partners and key stakeholders
 Focus groups discussions
A-14
 Case studies
 Online survey
 Site visits
 Others
The Contractor must conduct a thorough review of the Program through site visits and interviews. Site visits will be
planned taking into consideration factors like geographical diversity, representation of various implementation
agencies, and the scale of the interventions. The Contractor will receive direction from USAID/India in selecting
priority organizations and places to visit during the evaluation. The Contractor is expected to schedule interviews
or other modes of data collection with key stakeholders, though USAID/India can assist in providing contact
information if necessary.
The Contractor must:
a) Obtain visas and country clearances for travel for its personnel if required.
b) Coordinate and facilitate assessment-related team planning meetings, field trips, interviews, and other
meetings in conjunction with USAID and the Program team.
c) Coordinate international and in-country logistics as applicable such as transportation, accommodations,
communications, and office support, etc.
d) Ensure key informant interviews and/or focus groups are recorded and transcribed.
e) Submit all raw and processed data to become the property of USAID/India.
5 EVALUATION ANALYSIS AND REPORT GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS
The evaluation report must represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well-organized effort to objectively
evaluate what worked in the project, what did not, and why. The report must address all evaluation questions
included in the scope of work and should include the scope of work as an annex.
The evaluation methodology must be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as
questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides must be included in an annex in the final report. Evaluation
findings must assess outcomes and impact on males and females and limitations to the evaluation shall be
disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology
(selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).
Evaluation findings must be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay
or the compilation of people's opinions. Findings must be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or
qualitative evidence. Sources of information must be properly identified and listed in an annex.
Recommendations must be (a) supported by a specific set of findings; (b) action-oriented, practical, and specific;
and (c) have defined responsibility for the action.
6 TEAM COMPOSITION
The evaluation team must consist of three independent experts (two international and one local). All team
members must have professional level English speaking and writing skills.
1-Senior Evaluation Specialist (Team Leader): The evaluation will be led by a Senior Evaluation Specialist, supported
by other subject matter experts. The Senior Evaluation Specialist will be responsible for the overall implementation
of the evaluation, ensuring that all expected tasks and deliverables are achieved on time and of high quality. S/he
will oversee the overall design of the evaluation framework, including methodological determinations;
organization of calendar/travel/meetings; management of interviews, and other data collection events; and
analysis of data with input from team members to draft the evaluation report and presentation.
A-15
Skills/Experience: The Senior Evaluation Specialist (Team Leader) must have a Master’s degree with at least 10
years professional experience coordinating similarly complex evaluations, and leading evaluation teams. A
Bachelor’s Degree can be substituted with an additional three years of experience. The candidate must have
exceptional organizational, analytical, writing and presentation skills. S/he must have deep knowledge of
evaluation methodologies and their practical applications. Prior work experience in India is highly preferred.
2-Senior Alliances & Public Private Partnership Specialist: The Private Sector Specialist should have prior
experience in forging global public-private partnerships in multiple sectors with vast understanding of market
dynamics in low and middle-income countries. A Bachelor’s Degree and a minimum of 10 years of experience is
required in the design and managing of public private sector engagement strategies, partnerships and leveraging in
a development sector context. The Senior Alliances & Public Private Partnership Specialist will focus on the private
sector perspective of the DO3 and provide overall support to the entire evaluation team. S/he will be responsible
for assessing private commercial sector involvement in the activities in a range of sectors like health, agriculture,
energy and education. S/he will assess the process of identification of opportunity for partnerships, process of due
diligence, process of negotiating partnerships and signing of MOUs, leveraging, mechanisms to accelerate
participation as well as look at scalability and sustainability of partnerships. S/he would also assess the needs of
the private commercial sector and any untapped opportunities. S/he will also provide lessons learned and
recommendations for strengthening the project partnerships as well as suggestions for new directions for any
future design.
Skills/ Experience: The Senior Alliances & Public Private Partnership Specialist must have experience working with
private provider networks preferably in the area of USAID’s sector intervention. Experience in working with private
provider associations will also be an advantage. S/he must have an understanding of marketing, promotion and
consumer research. Prior working experience in India is preferred. This expert will assess the overall partnership
arrangements and processes and analyze the difference in the traditional donor funded and new partnership
approach.
3-Project Management and Governance Expert (Local): This expert must have extensive experience in managing
and governance of health, agriculture, education, and environment programs. Specifically, s/he must have an
excellent understanding of project administration, governance and management and should be familiar with the
functioning of large donor funded programs in India, particularly in bilateral and unilateral programs with
traditional approach.
Skills/Experience: The expert must have at least a Bachelor’s Degree and 10 years of experience in the
development sector. S/he must have a thorough knowledge of the project governance of large donor funded
programs which manage networks of NGOs and institutions; experience working with government and various
management issues related to such projects is required.
Sound experience in conducting evaluations or research is expected of all members, and experience in developing
strategies is essential. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions is essential.
After Task Order award, a statement of potential bias or conflict of interest letter will be required of each team
member prior to engaging the evaluation.
7 PROPOSED LEVEL OF EFFORT
It is envisioned that the team will have seven (7) days to undertake the desk study, and prepare the draft work
plan. The team will have seven (7) days for meetings and consultations in New Delhi and twelve (12) days to travel
to states where activities are being implemented. These visits will be finalized in consultation with USAID and the
project partners. The team will then have seven (7) days for analysis, draft report preparation and debriefing with
the Mission. Then the team will have five (5) days to finalize the report after receiving responses from USAID.
Offerors must propose the Level of Effort that they believe to be appropriate for this evaluation.
A-16
ANNEX C: EVALUATION MATRIX
Evaluation question Related questions Data source Data collection
method
Data analysis
method
1. Is USAID’s Science, Technology and
Innovation and Partnership (STIP)
approach consistent with the overall
objective and the attainment of its
DO3 immediate results?
 Have the IPP and MA mechanisms been successful in
bringing in additional partners over the course of
their operation?
 Have non-innovative programs been tagged as
“innovation” in order to receive funding through the
mechanisms?
 What attracts the private sector to working with
USAID?
 How have partners benefited from the USAID
relationship?
 Is the time horizon of these programs (3-5 years of
USAID funding) appropriate for the types of
innovations/investments being supported?
 Has gender been successfully integrated into
program design and implementation across the IPP
and MA mechanisms?
 Has USAID engagement been a catalyzer for
additional partners in platforms/alliances or funding
for social enterprises?
Implementing
partners, USAID
staff, other
stakeholders
(government,
donors,
investors),
project
documentation
KIIs, online
survey,
document
review
Qualitative
analysis,
statistical
analysis of
online survey
data, conversion
analysis of KIIs
2. To what extent has the intervention
been cost effective? What factors are
influencing any particular
discrepancies?
 Is there an additional administrative burden on the
part of USAID for IPP and MA activities?
 Is the procurement process simplified as a result of
these initiatives (timeline from award to launch
reduced)? Did processes need to be developed or
adapted to make the partnership work successfully?
 Are there additional costs being incurred at project
level/platform level?
 Are there measurable benefits to segregating a direct
implementing partner from a backbone (Alliance)
partner?
 Is there evidence that the cost per beneficiary is
reduced as a result of partnerships?
Implementing
partners, USAID
staff, project
documentation
KIIs, online
survey,
document
review
Qualitative cost
benefit analysis,
SWOT analysis,
Return on
investment (if
feasible), mini￾case studies
A-17
Evaluation question Related questions Data source Data collection
method
Data analysis
method
 Has capacity of the partner to scale operations been
sufficiently enhanced?
 Have IPP and MA been successful in leveraging
additional funding/investments? To what extent has
CSR funding been leveraged for different programs
and what are the issues around this?
3. To what extent are the partnership
approach and the interventions
resulting from the innovations
identified through IPP 1.0 and MA,
contributing towards accelerating
improved development outcomes in
health care, child survival clean water
and sanitation, education, clean
energy, food security and nutrition?
 Is the co-creation process effective in accelerating
impact?
 To what extent are programs working on models that
can feed into government programs? What are the
challenges in mainstreaming innovations through
government? What conditions can facilitate
government’s willingness to scale-up innovations?
 Is there evidence of innovations developed and/or
scaled through IPP or MA reaching the BOP?
 Is there a measurable improvement in impact,
acceleration, and scalability with a platform model as
opposed to a direct-funding model?
Implementing
partners, USAID
staff, other
stakeholders
(government,
donors,
investors),
project
documentation
KIIs, online
survey,
document
review
Qualitative
analysis,
statistical
analysis of
online survey
data, conversion
analysis of KIIs
4. What signs are there of changes
associated with target interventions in
health care, child survival, clean water
and sanitation, education, clean
energy, food security and nutrition,
e.g., what changes do people living at
the bottom of the pyramid and other
stakeholders attribute to the
interventions?
 What quantitative and qualitative changes were
brought about at BOP level in health care, child
survival, clean water and sanitation, education, clean
energy, food security and nutrition - as a result of
target interventions. a) direct changes brought about
by target interventions b) Changes in government
function as a result of government scale up
 Are the platforms on track to sustainability following
the end of USAID support?
Implementing
partners, USAID
staff, project
documentation
KIIs, online
survey,
document
review
Qualitative
analysis,
statistical
analysis of
online survey
data and
partners’
performance
indicators
A-18
ANNEX D: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
Implementing
Organization Project name Name & Title Location Sector Funding
window
Delhi-based Partners and
Stakeholders
IPE Global Improving RMNCH+A Urban Poor
(PAHAL) LM Singh, Project Director Delhi Health IPP
Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce
and Industry (FICCI)
Millennium Alliance Abhay Kumar Singh, Senior
Assistant Director Delhi Multi-sector MA
Center for Knowledge
Societies (CKS) READ Alliance Anurima Chatterjee, Program
Director Delhi Education IPP
Planet Read READ Alliance (sub-grantee) Nirav Shah, COO PlanetRead Delhi Education IPP
KPMG Project
Management Unit (PMU)
Technical Assistance to
Government of India for Swachh
Bharat (Clean India) Mission
Nilachal Mishra – Partner,
Infrastructure, Government and
Healthcare
Dr. Abhinav Akhilesh - Principal
& Lead, Human & Social
Services Strategy, Infrastructure,
Government and Health
Delhi Health/
WASH IPP
Solidarity and Action
Against the HIV Infection in
India (SAATHII)
Promote Public-Private
Partnership for Public Health
Services
Dr. Subhasree Raghavan, Chief
of Party Delhi Health IPP
ZMQ Development Adapting and piloting MIRA in
Uganda and Afghanistan Hilmi Quraishi, Co-Founder Delhi Health MA
A-19
Implementing
Organization Project name Name & Title Location Sector Funding
window
Technology Development
Board FICCI Partner Bindu Deu Delhi Stakeholder MA
DFID/UK Aid FICCI Partner Jeena Chhabra Delhi Stakeholder MA
Non-Delhi-based
Partners/Sub-Partners
Samagra
Providing access to clean, safe
and reliable community toilets for
the urban slum-dwelling poor
Mr. Swapnil Chaturvedi Pune Health/
WASH MA
Swasti Agro and
Bioproducts Pvt Ltd
BioAvert I: Biological program of
disease aversion for horticulture
crops
Dr. Abhay Shendye,
Founder/Director Pune Food
security MA
Impact Foundation (Dasra) RMNCH+A Alliance Ms. Shailja Mehta, Chief of Party Mumbai Health IPP
Aakar Innovations Empowering women through
menstrual hygiene solutions
Jaydeep Mandal,
Founder/Director
Nishi Arora, Program Head
Mumbai Health MA
A-20
Implementing
Organization Project name Name & Title Location Sector Funding
window
Greenway Grameen Infra
(GGI)
On-demand electricity generation
using waste heat generated during
cooking for rural households using
thermoelectric generators
Ms. Sucheta Baliga, Head
Marketing Mumbai Clean
energy
MA
Coeo Labs Pvt Ltd
Saans - device to keep lungs of
neonates with respiratory distress
syndrome (RDS) open while
transferring them from a low
resource setting to an Neonatal
intensive care unit (NICU)
Mr.NACHIKET DEVAL, Co￾founder Bangalore Health MA
WaterHealth International Establishing Community Water
System in Bangalore Slums
Madhu Krishnamoorthy, Head
Capital Business Unit
Libin P R, Manager Sales,
Bangalore Health/
WASH IPP
Ashoka Trust for Research
in Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE)
Managing India's Forests for
Biodiversity and Human Well￾being in the face of Global
Environmental Change
Dr. Siddappa Setty R, Fellow
(Associate Professor)
Program Leader - Forest and
Governance
Bangalore
Climate
change/
forestry
IPP
CLT India e-Patashale: Low cost innovative
e-content for STEM K-12 Ms. Bhagya Rangachar Bangalore Education MA
Hasiru Dala Waste picker franchise model Shekar Prabhakar, Managing
Director Bangalore Health/
WASH MA
A-21
Implementing
Organization Project name Name & Title Location Sector Funding
window
SELCO Foundation Sustainable Energy Solutions for
Poverty Reduction
Harish Hande, Managing
Director Bangalore
Climate
change/
clean
energy
IPP
IPE Global PAHAL: LifeSpring Visit Jayhawkers Srinivas, Head -
Process Control Hyderabad Health IPP
AgSri
Producing more with less:
Promoting Sustainable Sugarcane
Initiative (SSI)
Mr. Sraban Kumar Dalai Hyderabad Food
security MA
Santa Clara Global Social
Benefit Institute/New
Venture India
Energy Access Investment
Readiness Program Sanjoy Sanyal, Country Director Hyderabad
Climate
change/
clean
energy
IPP
Center for Microfinance
(CMF) Nurturing Early Literacy Project Vijay Singh, Program Manager Jaipur Education IPP
Bodh Shiksha Samiti CMF Nurturing Early Literacy
(Sub-grantee)
Kaptan Singh, Program
Coordinator
Swarnali Das, M&E In-charge
Chirag Patil, Program Associate
Udaipur Education IPP
Room to Read CMF Nurturing Early Literacy
(Sub-grantee)
Puja Bajad, Program Officer,
Vinod Panwar, Program Officer, Udaipur Education IPP
FIA Technology Services
Ltd
Financial deepening & economic
inclusion
Ms. Seema Prem, Co-Founder Gurgaon
Others
(financial
inclusion)
MA
A-22
Implementing
Organization Project name Name & Title Location Sector Funding
window
Skymet Weather Services
Pvt Ltd
Partnership in Climate Services for
Resilient Agriculture in India
Nalin Rawal
Chief (Business Head) - Agri
Business Solutions
Noida Food
security IPP
Simpa Energy
Expanding solar as a service to
lower income households &
microenterprises in India
Ms. Mitali Sahni, Investor
Relations Noida
Climate
change/
clean
energy
MA
A-23
ANNEX E: DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLED DO3 ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY NAME IMPLEMENTING PARTNER START DATE END DATE TOTAL USAID FUNDING
Clean Energy and Environment
1 Managing India’s Forests for Biodiversity and
Human Well-being in the Face of Global
Environmental Change
Ashoka Trust for Research
in Ecology and the
Environment (ATREE)
12-Jul-14 11-Jul-2018 $878,646
Description: This project focuses on biodiversity hotspots in India to address three priority areas: (1) increasing income of forest dependent communities; (2)
supporting innovations for fuel wood management; and (3) strengthening systems for forest resources management.
The project’s research goal is to develop a model of managing forest ecosystems and societal interactions in the face of global environmental and economic
change. This model will integrate scientific knowledge, local community knowledge and perceptions, action-oriented research findings, and initiatives for the co￾management of natural resources. Once developed, this model will be applicable to the management of many forest landscapes throughout India.
2 Sustainable Energy Solutions for Poverty
Reduction
The SELCO Foundation September 26, 2016 September 25, 2019 $500,000
Descriptions: Through this partnership SELCO Foundation will identify, develop, implement, and replicate sustainable clean energy interventions (combination
of technology, finance and social) for people who are in greatest need of energy services. These interventions will be targeted towards income generation
activities leading to improved well-being, health, education and livelihood. It will also build partnerships with the academic institutions, private sector and the
entrepreneurs, to reach the needed scale and impact. This project will impact more than 20,000 households and poor businesses over a period of three years.
3 Investment Facilitation Initiative for Energy
Access
Santa Clara University 1-Oct-2015 30-Sept-2018 $765,148
Description: The Global Social Benefits Institute and its Indian partner Regain Paradise Consulting will provide business development services (BDS) to enable
small businesses in India to supply clean energy solutions that will provide 1 million Indians living in areas not served by the national grid with access to modern
electricity. The BDS will enable these businesses to access capital for asset finance and working capital, and consumer finance for their customers. This will be
done by developing bankable business plans, strengthening management and operations, training financial institutions on appropriate credit evaluation
practices, and through investment banking services that target socially-motivated investors (one project partner will bring in $5 million in capital already raised
from these “impact investors”). The activities will facilitate a total of US$ 41 million in debt and equity, and enable the entrepreneurs/ventures to scale and
sustain their business models.
Food Security
4 Partnership in Climate Services for Resilient
Agriculture in India
Skymet Weather Services
Pvt. Ltd
Sep 2015 Sep 2019 $3,000,000
Description: Skymet Weather Services will deploy low cost automated weather stations in 31 districts in 9 States in India to collect and process high resolution
data, and provide farmers with a holistic and/or integrated extreme weather-induced risk management solutions at all stages of crop life cycle, thereby
increasing farmer’s adaptive capacity to climate associated risks. The project will make climate data and information, risk mitigation tools, and advisory services
more accessible to farmers in the target states in India.
A-24
ACTIVITY NAME IMPLEMENTING PARTNER START DATE END DATE TOTAL USAID FUNDING
Education
5 READ Alliance Centre for Knowledge
Societies (CKS) Consulting
Private Ltd.
August 2013 July 2018 $3,200,000
Description: The READ Alliance is a platform that brings together a diverse group of stakeholders dedicated to improving children’s reading skills in India. The
READ Alliance provides grant funding, technical support, knowledge management and advocacy to identify and test promising reading innovations. Through the
Early Grade Reading Innovation Challenge, the READ Alliance has awarded and incubated six reading solutions (implemented by sub-awardees Agragamee,
PlanetRead, Humana People to People, Educational Initiatives, Quality Education Support Trust, Karadi Path Education Company) that work in government-run
and tribal schools across India to improve early literacy for more than 100,000 children. READ Alliance partners have developed and distributed more than
30,000 teaching and learning materials from workbooks and teacher manuals to e-resources. Sub-partners are also using technology to improve reading skills,
such as introducing same-language subtitling to audio-visual content.
6 Nurturing Early Literacy Project Centre for Microfinance October 2015 September 2019 $ 2,498,465
Description: The latest Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) released in 2015 shows that more than half of the government school students in grade five are
unable to read a grade two text in their regional language. USAID partners with Tata Trusts and the Centre for Microfinance to address this issue through
implementing activities that build a strong foundation of emergent and early literacy competencies for 93,000 students across Rajasthan,
Maharashtra and Karnataka. For example, libraries in 100 schools in Rajasthan are now fully equipped and there is an e-library pilot program in 10 schools.
Teachers in 100 schools in Maharashtra have access to an online portal that provides them with resources materials and teaching modules they can use during
class. Partners have also organized book fairs to engage the community and students. The project aims to shift the prevalent rote-based pedagogy in India to one
that views the child as an active learner who can effectively learn sounds and symbols, read and write with comprehension, and can apply their knowledge in
everyday life.
Health & WASH
7 Establishing Community Water Systems in
Bangalore Slums
WaterHealth India Private
Limited
May 2014 May 2017 $451,200
Description: The Community Water Systems project aims to provide safe drinking water to under-served communities in Bangalore where piped water is not
available. Water Health’s award-winning water purification system and disinfection technology, combined with sustainable business approaches, are delivering
clean water to more than 30,000 households in Bangalore slums. Construction of 25 WaterHealth Centers (kiosks that purify and dispense water at affordable
rates) is complete. Other donors, such as Citibank, Tata Trust and Gap Inc. funded the establishment of 26 additional kiosks. Water Health recruited 31 women
to run the WaterHealth Centers making more than 55% of the WaterHealth Centers women-run. The Jaldhara Foundation and TATA Trusts are among the
private sector actors supporting this program.
8 Technical Assistance to Government of India
for Swachh Bharat Mission
Water, Sanitation and
Hygiene Institute (WASHi)
December 2015 July 2017 4,325,000
Description: This grant provides technical support to the Ministry of Urban Development (MOHUA), states and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) to enable them to
implement the Swachh Bharat (Clean India) Mission at the national, state and city levels. The technical assistance promotes universal safe and sustainable waste
management and sanitation access through safe containment, collection and transportation, treatment and reuse, to maximize public health impact. Through
A-25
ACTIVITY NAME IMPLEMENTING PARTNER START DATE END DATE TOTAL USAID FUNDING
this assistance, USAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsor a Project Management Unit (PMU) within MOHUA to help support, coordinate and
catalyze the GOI’s own massive Swachh Bharat resources.
9 RMNCH+A Alliance Impact Foundation
(Dasra)
05-Mar 2013 04-Mar-2018 $5,384,616
Description: This private sector led alliance aims to brokers knowledge and foster innovations for testing and demonstrating high impact interventions in
RMNCH+A. It will address key factors which impact the lifecycle and contribute towards preventable maternal and child deaths. It is envisaged that the
innovative concepts demonstrated by the alliance will contribute towards reduction of preventable morbidity and mortality among women and children.
10 Promoting Public Private Partnership (PPP)
Stewardship for RMNCH+A
Solidarity and Action
Against the HIV Infection
in India (SAATHI)
June 22, 2015 June 21, 2019 $4,709,935
Description: The purpose of this project is to facilitate an enabling environment for sustainable PPP initiatives in RMNCH+A programs, by strengthening national
and state government’s capacities to catalyze and provide stewardship to PPPs. The three focus areas for the project are: evidence building for private sector
engagement, strengthening stewardship, and improving quality of primary care in public and private health facilities. The project supports the Government of
India to roll-out India’s first patient feedback solution and also provides information technology based solutions to national and state governments.
11 Improving RMNCH+A for India’s Urban Poor￾PAHAL
IPE Global September, 2016 September, 2020 $10,000,000
Description: To improve access to affordable and quality promotive, primary, and secondary Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child, and Adolescent health
(RMNCH+A) services for the urban poor in the main states burdened by child deaths and with the highest burden on urban maternal and child mortality within
the five-year project period.
Multi-Sector
12 Millennium Alliance FICCI 29-May-12 28-May-17 $7,700,000
Description: The MA Project focuses on strengthening the capacity of FICCI--a non-government, to develop a broad-based sustainable platform to foster
development innovations in specified sectors. The Millennium Alliance is a platform to leverage Indian creativity, expertise, and resources to source and scale
innovations being developed and tested in India that will benefit vulnerable populations across India and the world. The Millennium Alliance has grown from
three founding partners in 20012 including USAID, FICCI and Technology Development Board of the Government of India, to now having eight partners including
UKAID, ICCO Cooperation, ICICI Foundation, Wadhwani Initiative for Sustainable Health (WISH) Foundation and the World Bank. The partnership’s core purpose
is to help Indian entrepreneurs secure the funding necessary to develop and pilot solutions to the country’s most challenging social and economic problems. By
bringing together FICCI, India’s largest private bank, public and private donors, Indian businesses, and venture capitalists, the alliance provides local innovators
with funding, mentorship and business accelerator services.
A-26
ANNEX F: GENDER INTEGRATION COUNTRY CASE EXAMPLE
Integrating Gender at All Levels: Afghanistan’s Health Services Support Project
The USAID-funded Health Services Support Project, led by Jhpiego with partners Save the Children and
Futures Group, ran from July 2006 through October 2012. The project sought to improve the quality of
services provided to women of reproductive age and children under the age of five. What made HSSP
unique is that at the time, it was the first and only Health project that had a gender-specific Intermediate
Results (IR)—integrating gender awareness and practice into the Basic Package of Health Services
(BPHS).
Key Take-aways:
 Male and female Gender Officers were hired to support the IR. Hiring a male in this position
was a deliberate attempt to highlight the point that gender didn’t simply refer to women and
that men are and should be involved in gender integration and programming activities.
 Capacity building on gender was not only for Gender Officers but for all project staff. Gender
Officers received capacity building through mentoring, on-the-job training, and e-learning
courses. For project staff, HSSP raised awareness about gender issues and gender-related
programming through a number of activities, including two-hour or half-day gender awareness
orientations, gender updates and discussions during technical team meetings, gender
orientations and updates during annual staff retreats, and occasional one-day gender training
events for all staff.
 The project conducted a Gender Audit, which showed that while HSSP promoted exclusive
breastfeeding for the first six months after delivery of a baby, it did not have a place for new
mothers among its own staff to breastfeed their babies. Therefore, a room in the HSSP office
was identified to serve as a breastfeeding room and a full-time babysitter was hired.
 HSSP strengthened female leadership on the project. The project committed to building
technical, management, and leadership capacity of its entire staff, particularly female staff, and to
promoting from within, which resulted in strong female leaders within the project. Out of all
USAID-funded health projects, HSSP had the most female staff—23 females out of 125 total staff
(including administrative or support staff) or 18%—and the most female leaders (three out of
10, or 30%).
 Establishment of Family Health Action (FHA) groups that empowered and mobilized women in
communities by building their capacity to take important decisions and actions to improve their
families’ basic health practices. FHA groups provided a forum for women to come together and
discuss issues important to them in a context that is comfortable and culturally appropriate.
 Technical support to the Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) to review and include language and
evaluation criteria related to gender in a request for proposals for BPHS service delivery grants.
Source: https://www.jhpiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Afghanistan-Case-Study.pdf
A-27
ANNEX G: LINKING PUBLIC, PRIVATE, AND SOCIAL SECTORS COUNTRY
CASE EXAMPLE
Jamaica FARMS (Farmers Access to Regional Markets) Program
The Jamaica Farmers Access to Regional Markets (JA FARMS) program was an innovative agribusiness
development initiative that linked the public, private and social sectors to support sustainable economic
opportunities for small holding farmers in Jamaica. The program sought to address supply issues faced by
the country’s domestic agribusinesses due to lack of consistent and high-quality supply of horticulture
products – forcing many of them to look off-island for raw materials. With private sector sponsorship
from Jamaican agribusinesses and matching funds from USAID’s Global Development Alliance, the Jamaica
Farmers Access to Regional Markets (FARMS) program was designed to improve the competitiveness of
the Jamaican agricultural sector. Phase One of the program focused on building the capacity of businesses
through direct technical assistance with regards to production agriculture and business strategy, as well
as through facilitation of innovative business relationships that strengthened linkages along the value
chain. The program sought to connect small growers and marketers through fixed-price contracts and
facilitated the transfer of new production and business technologies from marketers to growers.
Phase Two of the program, also funded by USAID, sought to promote protected agriculture as a viable
component of a competitive agricultural industry. The program addressed unsustainable agricultural
practices and environmental degradation through innovative greenhouse technologies which incorporated
the best intensive production methods through affordable, scalable structures – primarily high tunnel
greenhouse technology. The adoption of these technologies improved food security by minimizing the risk
associated with outdoor crop production and mitigated the effects of global climate change by reducing
soil erosion and limiting slash-and-burn agriculture. During this phase, intensive training was provided to
Government of Jamaica extension agents in how to best support farmers using the protected agriculture
technology.
Phase Two also included the development of a Market Information System with the Ministry of Agriculture,
leveraging the power of technology to collect and disseminate pricing information to all stakeholders
throughout the value chain and improve access to end-market opportunities. The three-tier system -
coined JAMIS (Jamaica Agriculture Market Information System) - incorporates the latest mobile data
capturing warehousing technology and features a fully functional companion website which provides for
access to the general public. The Ministry of Agriculture continues to utilize JAMIS and it is updated daily,
years after program completion.
Key Program Outputs:
 555% increase in contract income over pre-project levels for growers
 50% increase in revenue, and expanded markets for sponsoring agribusiness
 574 people identified as having increased economic benefits as a result of USG assistance
 3016.6 hectares of land placed under improved management
 650 growers, extension officers, and students trained in protected agriculture practices and
technologies
 300 people trained in natural resources management and biodiversity conservation
 50 greenhouses or exclusion cages constructed
A-28
ANNEX H: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
ONLINE SURVEY OF DO3 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS
A. Organization information
1. Organization name:
2. Organization location:
3. Contact person:
4. Year established:
B. Project information
5. Activity name:
6. Sector: Climate change/clean energy Education Food Security/agriculture Health
7. Duration of project:
8. Start of project implementation (please state year):
9. Location(s) of project implementation: (please check all that apply)
States:
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
West Bengal
Union Territories:
Andaman & Nicobar
Chandigarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Daman and Diu
Delhi
Lakshadweep
Puducherry
A-29
Knowledge about USAID and development assistance
10. Is this the first time that your organization has partnered contractually with USAID?
a. Yes (go to #12)
b. No (go to #11)
11. If no, what was the nature of your previous contractual relationship with USAID?
a. Implementing partner through APS
b. Grantee through unsolicited proposal
c. Sub-grantee on a project with international NGO/development consulting firm
d. Other (please state)
12. How would you rate your knowledge of USAID development objectives and activities prior to your current
partnership?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
13. How would you rate your knowledge of USAID development objectives and activities since the partnership?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
14. How would you rate your knowledge of USAID procurement procedures prior to your current partnership?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
15. How would you rate your knowledge of USAID procurement procedures since the partnership?
a. Excellent
b. Good
c. Fair
d. Poor
16. Did you receive any training and capacity building on USAID policies and procedures?
a. Yes
b. No (go to 19)
17. If yes, approximately how many hours of training and capacity building did you receive? _____ hours
18. How would you rate the training and capacity building efforts you received?
a. Very helpful
b. Moderately helpful
c. A little helpful
d. Not helpful
19. Please indicate the funding window for your partnership
a. India Partnership Program Annual Program Statement (if checked, please go to Section D)
b. Millennium Alliance (if checked, please go to Section E)
A-30
C. Feedback on partnership experience with the IPP initiative
20. How would you rate your experience with the following aspects of partnership with USAID, with 1 = not
satisfied and 5 = very satisfied
20a. Co-creation of the project 1 2 3 4 5
20b. Agreeing on outcomes and performance indicators 1 2 3 4 5
20c. Negotiating funding level and cost sharing 1 2 3 4 5
20d. Contractual process 1 2 3 4 5
20e. Reporting requirements 1 2 3 4 5
20f. Communications 1 2 3 4 5
21. To what extent did partnership with USAID help to attract additional funding (public and/or private) for your
program?
a. Very helpful
b. Moderately helpful
c. A little helpful
d. Not helpful
22. How would you rate your experience in managing partnerships with your grantee(s), with 1 = not satisfied and
5 = very satisfied
22a. Designing the project/activity 1 2 3 4 5
22b. Agreeing on outcomes and performance indicators 1 2 3 4 5
22c. Negotiating funding level and cost sharing 1 2 3 4 5
22d. Contractual process 1 2 3 4 5
22e. Reporting requirements 1 2 3 4 5
22f. Technical support during implementation 1 2 3 4 5
23. Does your program include partnership with any of the following?
23a. Venture capitalist Yes No
23b. Social entrepreneurs Yes No
23c. Investors Yes No
23d. Financial services providers Yes No
23e. Indian diaspora Yes No
24. For those marked yes, please rank your experience collaborating with these entities, with 1 = not satisfied and
5 = very satisfied.
24a. Venture capitalists 1 2 3 4 5
24b. Social Entrepreneurs 1 2 3 4 5
24c. Investors 1 2 3 4 5
24d. Financial Service Providers 1 2 3 4 5
24e. Indian Diaspora 1 2 3 4 5
`
25. To what extent did partnership with USAID help to incubate, accelerate, or scale up your sub-grantees’
innovation?
a. Very helpful
A-31
b. Moderately helpful
c. A little helpful
d. Not helpful
Please go to Section F
D. Feedback on partnership experience with the Millennium Alliance
26. Please indicate the category under which your innovation is funded:
a. Stage 1: Proof of concept – piloting or testing an innovation
b. Stage 2: Scaling or replicating an innovation that has been pilot tested
c. Stage 3: Replicating the innovation in other low-income countries
27. How would you rate your experience with the following aspects of the MA initiative, with 1 = not satisfied and
5 = very satisfied
27a. Application process 1 2 3 4 5
27b. Agreeing on outcomes and performance indicators 1 2 3 4 5
27c. Funding and cost-sharing level 1 2 3 4 5
27d. Contractual process 1 2 3 4 5
27e. Reporting requirements 1 2 3 4 5
27f. Technical support during implementation 1 2 3 4 5
28. To what extent did partnership with USAID help your grantees to incubate, accelerate, or scale up their
innovation?
a. Very helpful
b. Moderately helpful
c. A little helpful
d. Not helpful
29. To what extent did partnership with USAID help your grantees to attract additional funding (public and/or
private) for their innovation?
a. Very helpful
b. Moderately helpful
c. A little helpful
d. Not helpful
E. Impact of Partnership
30. To what extent was gender integrated/mainstreamed into your partnership with USAID and/or grantees?
a. Fully integrated using common and custom indicators
b. Partially integrated with custom indicators
c. Not at all integrated
31. In your opinion, was your program and/or your grantee effective in reaching the Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP)
a. Highly effective
b. Moderately effective
c. Not effective
d. Not sure
32. To what extent did your program and interventions contribute to changes in the sector in which you were
working – e.g. individual behavioral change, organizational change, systemic change?
A-32
a. Significant direct contribution
b. Moderate direct contribution
c. Indirect contribution
d. Not sure
F. Conclusion
33. Please list three key success factors in implementing your partnership with USAID and/or other stakeholders
a. _________________________________________________________________________________
b. _________________________________________________________________________________
c. _________________________________________________________________________________
34. Please list three key challenges in implementing your partnership with USAID and/or other stakeholders.
a. _________________________________________________________________________________
b. _________________________________________________________________________________
c. _________________________________________________________________________________
35. Other Comments/Suggestions
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU!
A-33
KII GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS
A. Organization background
1. Please tell us about your organization
2. What is your motivation in partnering with USAID? What benefits do you anticipate from a partnership with
USAID?
3. Is this the first time that your organization has partnered contractually with USAID?
● If no, what was the nature of your previous contractual relationship with USAID?
B. Project formulation
4. What is the problem/challenge/market gap that your project is trying to address? What is the target
market/primary beneficiaries of your program?
5. How does the project intend to address this problem/challenge/market gap? To what extent was gender
integrated into your design? What is the innovation? How/why is your approach innovative?
6. Can you tell us more about the co-creation process that you went through with USAID?
● Identifying common objectives, approaches, outcomes
● Agreeing on cost-sharing, reporting
7. What benefits did you receive from this co-creation process? What knowledge and/or skills did you gain from
this process?
8. What were the key challenges of co-creation?
9. In your opinion, how can this process be improved?
C. Project Implementation and Results
10. To what extent was USAID engaged in project implementation? What was the nature of the engagement?
● Convening resource partners
● Outreach
● Training and capacity building
11. To what extent did USAID engagement and support impact project implementation (positive and negative)? To
what extent did this support help your organization to scale up your program?
12. What can be improved? What recommendations do you have to improve the level and type of engagement?
13. In your opinion, what are the key successes of your project? What would you consider to be the greatest
impact that you had on the bottom of the pyramid? To what extent did program activities facilitate gender
mainstreaming?
14. To what degree did partnership with USAID influence the success of your project? Please rate on a scale of 1
to 5, 1 = no influence and 5 = significant influence
15. To what extent did the partnership with USAID help to catalyze additional investments (private and/or public)
or additional partners (financial and resource) to your program? From which types of investors have you been
able to leverage additional funding? To what extent did your program benefit from CSR funding?
A-34
16. What are the key challenges of your project? Is the time horizon (3-5 years) appropriate? How did you handle
these challenges? Were there changes/adaptations that have been made?
17. What other improvements would you make in the future?
D. Feedback on partnership experience
18. In your opinion, what are the key success factors for partnering with USAID?
● Initiatives taken to support project partners achieve outputs and outcomes
● Has partnership with the state/central government been sufficiently built to scale impact on the
ground
● What is the gender approach at this level?
● Has platform approach helped in increasing impact on government policy?
19. What are the key challenges?
20. What can be done to increase the effectiveness and impact of the partnership?
21. What advice would you give to another organization who is interested in partnering with USAID?
THANK YOU!
A-35
KII GUIDE FOR SUB-GRANTEES
A. Organization background
1. Please tell us about your organization
2. What is your motivation in partnering with a USAID project? What benefits do you anticipate from a
partnership with this USAID project?
3. Is this the first time that your organization has collaborated with a USAID-funded program?
a. If no, what was the nature of your previous relationship with USAID?
B. Project design and preparation
4. What is the problem/challenge/market gap that your organization is trying to address? What is the target
market/primary beneficiaries of your activity?
5. How did you intend to address this problem/challenge/market gap? To what extent was gender integrated
into your design? What is the innovation? How/why is your approach innovative?
6. Did you receive external support from the USAID platform on the design of your activity? If yes, can you tell us
more about the support? How did this support benefit your project?
7. What benefits did you receive from this support? What knowledge and/or skills did you gain from this
support?
8. In your opinion, how can the level and type of support be improved?
C. Implementation and Results
9. To what extent was the USAID platform engaged in project implementation? What was the nature of the
engagement?
a. Convening resource partners
b. Outreach and networking
c. Training and capacity building
10. To what extent did the USAID platform’s engagement and support impact project implementation (positive
and negative)? To what extent did this support affect your organization’s ability to scale up?
11. What can be improved? What recommendations do you have to improve the level and type of engagement?
12. In your opinion, what are the key successes of your project? What would you consider to be the greatest
impact that you had on the bottom of the pyramid? To what extent did program activities facilitate gender
mainstreaming?
13. To what degree did the partnership with the USAID platform influence the success of your project? Please rate
on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 = no influence and 5 = significant influence
14. To what extent did the partnership with the USAID platform help to catalyze additional investments (private
and/or public) or additional partners (financial and resource) to your program? From which types of investors
have you been able to leverage additional funding? To what extent did your program benefit from CSR
funding?
A-36
15. What are the key challenges of your project? Is the time horizon appropriate? How did you handle these
challenges? Were there changes/adaptations that have been made?
16. What other improvements would you make in the future?
D. Feedback on partnership experience
17. In your opinion, what are the key success factors for partnering with USAID?
a. Outcomes achieved vs desired outcomes in project plan
b. To what extent are gender approaches mainstreamed at project level?
c. To what extent have Enterprises successfully been connected to other platforms or to
Government
d. Have projects scaled up - to what extent - why have some not been able to scale
18. What are the key challenges?
19. What can be done to increase the effectiveness and impact of the partnership?
20. What advice would you give to another organization who is interested in partnering with USAID?
THANK YOU!
A-37
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20523
Tel: (202) 712-0000
Fax: (202) 216-3524
www.usaid.gov