FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PEACE CORPS PARTICIPATING AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT (PAPA) December 15, 2017 FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PEACE CORPS PARTICIPATING AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT (PAPA) This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development Developed under Contract/Task Order Number: AID-OAA-I-15-00024/AID-OAA-TO￾16-00008. It was prepared independently by: Leona Ba, Team Leader Matt Zimmerman, Technical Specialist Contractor: Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning (PEEL) Mendez England & Associates 1020 19th Street NW, Suite 875 Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: 240-762-6296 www.mendezengland.com 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. ABSTRACT The Peace Corps Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) was started in 2011. It has involved nine funding sources including the Bureau of Food Security (BFS), the Africa Bureau, and seven Missions. The aim is to support the Feed the Future goals of reducing poverty and malnutrition. The evaluation of PAPA was conducted by a two-person team with fieldwork in Zambia and Senegal and used a case study design. It consisted of document review, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, observation, and digital photography. Three overarching questions were examined looking at outcomes, planning and coordination, and the Peace Corps approach. The evaluation found that there were differences between USAID and Peace Corps in how each organization perceived contribution to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results and what it valued. USAID focused on change in quantitative variables that would indicate the achievement of results while Peace Corps emphasized the capacity building processes that it expected would lead to those results. The evaluation identified the factors that have positively and negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives, and made actionable recommendations for both USAID and Peace Corps to inform future similar agreements and enhance their effectiveness in achieving Feed the Future objectives. CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................................ iii CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................................... iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Purpose .............................................................................................................................................1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Questions .........................................................................................................................................1 Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations ...............................................................................................2 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................................................................2 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS ................................................................................9 1.1 Evaluation Purpose ..................................................................................................................................9 1.2 Audience ....................................................................................................................................................9 1.3 Evaluation Questions ..............................................................................................................................9 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................10 2.1 Project Description ...............................................................................................................................10 2.2 Theory of Change..................................................................................................................................11 2.3 Approach and Implementation ...........................................................................................................12 2.3.1 Project Implementation in Zambia ...................................................................................13 2.3.2 Project Implementation in Senegal ...................................................................................13 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS .........................................................................14 3.1 Evaluation Methodology .......................................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Evaluation Design ..................................................................................................................14 3.2 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................14 3.2.1 Data Collection Methods and Tools ................................................................................14 3.2.2 Data Collection Process and Procedures .......................................................................16 3.3 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................16 3.4 Evaluation Limitations ...........................................................................................................................17 4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................17 4.1 Evaluation Question 1: Outcomes ....................................................................................................17 4.1.1 To what extent has this Agreement contributed to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results? ...............................................................................17 4.1.2 What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives? ...........................................27 4.1.3 For interventions positively affecting food security and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which PCVs work, how could they be replicated to maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? .....................................................................................39 4.1.4 To what extent has this agreement contributed to Peace Corps cross-cutting themes of gender, technology, climate, youth, HIV/AIDS, disability, and volunteerism? .........................................................................................................................41 4.1.5 Overall recommendations to improve Peace Corps’ contribution to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results.....................................................43 4.2 Evaluation Question 2: Planning and Coordination .......................................................................45 4.2.1 What has worked well in terms of the program planning and coordination mechanisms? What needs to be improved? What lessons have been learned? ....45 4.2.2 To what extent have the overall program planning and coordination mechanisms supported the implementation of program activities? .................................................47 4.3 Evaluation Question 3: Peace Corps Approach .............................................................................50 4.3.1 To what extent is the Peace Corps approach (volunteer-based activities in a number of disparate sites) effective in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? ..............................................................................................................................50 4.3.2 What are some of the strengths of the Peace Corps approach? How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? .........................................................................50 4.3.3 What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where volunteers work? ...........................52 ANNEXES .........................................................................................................................................................................54 Annex 1.0 Expression of Interest .........................................................................................................55 Annex 2.0 Key Informant Interview Guides .......................................................................................62 Annex 2.1 Key Informant Interview Guide – USAID Missions ..............................................63 Annex 2.2 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Staff ............................................66 Annex 2.3 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteers ...............................69 Annex 2.4 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteer Counterpart ........72 Annex 2.5 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Partner ......................................74 Annex 3.0 Focus Group Discussion Guide – Beneficiaries ............................................................76 Annex 4.0 Template For Focus Group Discussion Notes..............................................................79 Annex 5.0 Informed Consent Form .....................................................................................................81 Annex 6.0 Results of Informal Data Quality Assessment ...............................................................83 Annex 7.0 References ..............................................................................................................................85 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Feed the Future Results Framework .........................................................................................................12 Figure 2: Number of Individuals Who Received USG Supported Training by Country ................................. 20 Figure 3: Number of Farmers Who Applied New Technologies or Management Practices ........................20 Figure 4: Number of Producer Organizations, Associations, and CBOs Receiving USG Assistance ..........21 Figure 5: Progress in Number of Hectares Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices by Country .............................................................................................................................................................21 Figure 6: Number of Private Organizations, Associations, and CBOs Who Applied New Technologies and Management Practices with USG Assistance ...................................................................................22 Figure 7: Peace Partner and His Staff ..........................................................................................................................27 Figure 8: Contributions to Feed the Future Objectives of Zambia's ZOI vs. Non-ZOI ................................28 Figure 9: A Woman Farmer and Her Fruit Tree Nursery .....................................................................................29 Figure 10: Extension Manuals in the Community Library ......................................................................................33 Figure 11: Common Traits of Effective Programs ...................................................................................................44 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Data Collection Methods, Data Sources and Number of People Interviewed for the Evaluation by Site ................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 2: Indicators for Improve Agricultural Productivity ..................................................................................... 19 Table 3: Contributions to Improved Agriculture Productivity (IR1) ................................................................... 22 Table 4: Contribution of Peace Corps Activities to the Other Seven Feed the Future Program Areas ... 24 ACRONYMS AGIR Alliance pour la Gestion Intégrée des Ressources du Delta du Saloum ANPEJ Agence Nationale pour la Promotion de l’Emploi des Jeunes APCD Associate Peace Corps Director BFS Bureau for Food Security CBO Community Based Organization CED Community Economic Development CHIP Community Health Improvement Project CIP International Potato Center DDL USAID’s Development Data Library DEC USAID’s Development Experience Clearinghouse ERA Education and Research in Agriculture ETP Entrepreneurship Training Program FSC Food Security Coordinator FTF Feed the Future IAA Interagency Agreement IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result ISRA Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles IST In-Service Training LIFE Linking Income Food and Environment Project LOE Level of Effort LOP Life of Project M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organization OFSP Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato OMB Office of Management and Budget OPATS Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support OSP Office of Strategic Partnerships PACA Participatory Analysis for Community Action PAPA Participating Agency Program Agreement PC Peace Corps PCV Peace Corps Volunteer PEEL Program Evaluation for Effectiveness and Learning - USAID task order contract PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief PII Personally Identifiable Information PMP Performance Management Plan PST Pre-Service Training PTA Programming and Training Assistant RAP Rural Aquaculture Promotion Project RED Rural Education Development Project SOW Statement of Work TOT Training of Trainers USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government VRF Volunteer Report Form WWF World Wildlife Fund ZARI Zambia Agriculture Research Institute ZOI Zone of Influence www.feedthefuture.gov | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVALUATION PURPOSE This report focuses on the performance evaluation of the Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA), which was implemented by Peace Corps from July 2011 to September 2017. PAPA is an interagency agreement between Peace Corps and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Food Security (BFS) with a total funding of $13,854,611. PAPA’s evaluation was conducted by a team of two experts and comprised fieldwork in Zambia and Senegal. The purpose of PAPA’s evaluation was to provide empirical evidence to support learning and continuous improvement for the work of the USAID/Bureau of Food Security (BFS) and Peace Corps. The evaluation assessed: 1) progress toward outcomes; 2) what worked well and what needed to be improved in the implementation of activities. The audience for the evaluation includes USAID/BFS, Peace Corps, all relevant Peace Corps agency stakeholders, and relevant USAID technical offices. The results of the evaluation could be used by BFS and Peace Corps to improve activity effectiveness and better achieve intended results. PROJECT BACKGROUND In July 2011, Peace Corps and USAID/BFS signed an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) to implement activities in support of the Feed the Future initiative. The overarching goal of the agreement was to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty by tackling their root causes and employing proven strategies to achieve large scale and sustainable impact. Funding was provided through BFS’ central Statement of Work (SOW), the Africa Bureau SOW, and seven additional SOWs from participating Missions. The purpose was to enhance Peace Corps’ food security programming. Officially, the agreement covered “any [Feed the Future] focus, aligned, or affiliated country in which Peace Corps works, or any country in which a USAID operating unit supports activities consistent with the objectives of this agreement.” The agreement expired on October 31, 2017. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation questions (EQs) and sub-questions explored three specific areas related to PAPA’s implementation and achievements, namely: EQ 1: Outcomes 1A. To what extent has this agreement contributed to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results. 1B. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives? 1C. For interventions positively affecting food security and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) work, how could they be replicated to maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? 1D. To what extent has this agreement contributed to Peace Corps’ crosscutting themes of gender, technology, climate, youth, HIV/AIDS, disability, and volunteerism? EQ 2: Planning and Coordination 2A. What has worked well in terms of the program planning and coordination mechanisms? What needs to be improved? What lessons have been learned? www.feedthefuture.gov | 2 2B. To what extent have the overall program planning and coordination mechanisms supported the implementation of program activities? 2C. What improvements could be made by the Peace Corps, by BFS, or by USAID Missions to better support the implementation of activities? EQ 3: Peace Corps Approach/Model 3A. To what extent is the Peace Corps approach (volunteer-based activities in a number of disparate sites) effective in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? 3B. What are some of the strengths of the Peace Corps approach? How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? 3C. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where Volunteers work? EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation used a case study design. Evaluation questions were addressed using multiple sources of evidence, combining qualitative and quantitative monitoring data. Data sources included Peace Corps staff, USAID staff, Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs), Peace Corps partners,1 PCV counterparts, community beneficiaries, project documents, and site visits. Data were collected through various methods, namely document review, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, observation, and digital photography. Due to budget constraints and the geographic spread of activities, fieldwork for the evaluation was conducted only in two countries: Senegal and Zambia. Purposive sampling was used to: 1) select the most appropriate data sources to answer evaluation questions; 2) ensure a balance between agricultural and nutrition-related activities; and 3) include women and their activities. The evaluation had a number of limitations. First, since this evaluation used a case study design with a strong reliance on qualitative data, it is not possible to generalize findings. Second, because of security reasons, a list of all volunteer sites in Peace Corps zones of influence could not be obtained. Therefore, it was not possible to use random sampling, which might have introduced bias in the selection process. Third, there was a language barrier during data collection, which may have increased risks in bias and errors. Fourth, there was inadequate and insufficient quality of the performance indicator data. Fifth, available time and timing of fieldwork were also constraints for the ET. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations by EQ are presented in the table below. 1 Partners work with the Peace Corps to implement selected activities. www.feedthefuture.gov | 3 Findings Conclusions Recommendations Evaluation Question 1 The agreement indicates that “USAID will measure success toward [its] goal at the highest levels, namely the prevalence of poverty and underweight children.” To measure project success, USAID proposed measuring quantifiable differences referred to as “change” in the variables listed in both objectives of the agreement. However, no baseline data were collected that would allow comparison with post-intervention measures of variables. In its 2017 Global Food Security Implementation Plan, Peace Corps states that it contributes to the mitigation of food insecurity by “building local capacity at the individual, group, and community level to promote sustainability.” Therefore, Peace Corps focuses more on the capacity building processes that facilitate the achievement of results. There were major differences between USAID and Peace Corps in how each organization perceived contribution to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results, and what it valued. USAID measures results at the highest levels, whereas Peace Corps aims at building capacity at the individual, group, and community levels. As a result, PAPA contributions to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives and intermediate results can only be determined at the levels where Peace Corps actually works, namely the individual, group, and community levels. The lack of baseline data made it impossible to determine the project’s contribution to change in quantitative variables relevant for Feed the Future.        Future agreements between USAID and Peace Corps should better align with Peace Corps’ approach and experience. Define Peace Corps’ role as that of a “pre￾implementation” partner, one who builds the “foundation” that will increase the likelihood of the success of Feed the Future interventions. “Translate” the Feed the Future theory of change at individual, group, and community levels, specifying the types of capacity-building activities that Peace Corps should complete at those levels to facilitate the implementation of activities that will contribute to the achievement of Feed the Future higher-level results. Develop a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan that includes quantitative and qualitative variables that effectively measure capacity building processes and the results of these processes. Peace Corps has contributed to all Feed the Future program areas, except Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities. Its greatest investments were in increasing agricultural productivity, focusing on nutrient-dense foods, which increased incomes, and improved nutrition and resilience of beneficiaries. Its contributions were also limited in the areas of:  Improved markets and household access to markets, due to poor transportation Except for the area of Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities in which it does not intervene, Peace Corps has contributed in all other areas of the Feed the Future initiative. Contribution was limited in the areas of Improved markets and household access to markets, and Increased agriculture value chain on and off-farm jobs. Several barriers limited these outcomes, namely: 1) limited or no access to markets, which limited sales and revenues; 2) the lack of water, which was one of the main constraints; 3) the lack of Peace Corps should integrate entrepreneurship in its training for agricultural production and other income￾generating activities. Peace Corps’ capacity-building activities should expand beyond production in the agricultural value chain and include at least the storage and processing stage of the value chain to increase jobs and incomes. Peace Corps and USAID should identify partners, including the private sector, who www.feedthefuture.gov | 4 Findings Conclusions Recommendations infrastructure and the lack of business planning. Increased agriculture value chain on and off￾farm jobs. Peace Corps activities usually end at the production stage. However, increased agricultural value chain activities beyond production emerged as the area with the greatest potential for growth to increase household income. capital to grow the business (for purchase of inputs, equipment, supplies, etc.); 4) destruction of crops by animals because of the lack of fences to protect them; and 5) sales of high-revenue nutrient-dense foods competing with the household consumption of such foods. could work with Peace Corps to build on its work with interventions like: providing essential resources such as wells; direct links to markets; fences to protect crops; and funding for business development. Factors that positively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives include: Effective technical assistance by Peace Corps staff; successful adoption of new varieties and agricultural practices; new income-generating activities; community participation and ownership; good entrepreneurship skills; effective partnerships; and innovation to improve capacity of Peace Corps and targeted communities to contribute to Feed the Future objectives. As listed under Findings, there were several factors that had a positive effect on the achievement of Feed the Future objectives. In future agreements, USAID and Peace Corps should use these factors to inform the development of the theory of change at individual, group, and community levels. In this process, they should specify the types of capacity-building activities that Peace Corps should complete at those levels to facilitate the implementation of activities that will contribute to the achievement of Feed the Future higher￾level results. Factors that negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives include: 1. The lack of buy-in from Peace Corps leadership. 2. i The negative influence of Feed the Future ndicators on implementation: focus on numbers in Feed the Future indicators places pressure on volunteers to implement activities that can be easily and quickly measured by numbers at the There were a number of factors that affected the achievement of feed the Future objectives negatively. They include: the lack of buy-in from Peace Corps leadership; the negative influence of Feed the Future indicators on implementation; competition between increasing incomes and improving nutritional status; poor business management skills; lack of capital; lack of access to markets; culture; and external factors (climate change, low soil quality, poor transportation infrastructure, and the corruption of local government agents).    Future agreements should position associated staff and related activities as a separate and more visible entity to better draw the attention and buy-in of Peace Corps leadership. USAID and Peace Corps should define indicators that are better aligned with the Peace Corps approach and its implication on the work expected from PCVs. The introduction of new crop varieties and other nutrient-dense foods should be www.feedthefuture.gov | 5 Findings Conclusions Recommendations expense of those viewed as critical by Peace Corps, namely building relationships and trust. 3. Competition between increasing incomes and improving nutritional status. 4. Poor business management skills. 5. The lack of capital, which prevented beneficiaries from acquiring the goods and services that were essential for the continuity and growth of income￾generating activities. 6. The lack of access to markets was one of the main reasons for the failure of income￾generating activities. 7. Culture: some successful beneficiaries were victims of the jealousy of community members who burned their fields or killed their cattle. 8. External factors that negatively affected the achievement of results included: climate change; low soil quality; poor transportation infrastructure; and the corruption of local government agents. accompanied by community economic development activities that increase household income and create jobs to decrease the need to sell foods meant to improve household nutrition.    Business management should be integrated in all training for beneficiaries. USAID and Peace Corps should identify potential partners, including those in the private sector that could provide beneficiaries with access to capital, and could help address external factors that negatively affected the achievement of results. Peace Corps should minimize the risk of negative effects of culture by: 1) emphasizing the benefits at the community level resulting from the success of specific individuals or groups; 2) exploring opportunities for successful beneficiaries to purchase insurance to protect their assets. The Agreement has contributed to several of Peace Corps’ cross-cutting themes as follows. 1. Gender: a) increase in women’s leadership roles in their communities; and b) improving tools and approaches to better integrate gender in Peace Corps’ programs. 2. Youth: a) youth were trained in entrepreneurship and about ¼ received funding to start their businesses; b) youth clubs were established and provided with PAPA has contributed in a number of cross￾cutting themes, including gender, youth, HIV/AIDS, climate, and disability.    Peace Corps should integrate gender and women at the project design stage both at organizational and community levels, with relevant training for staff and PCVs. Peace Corps should continue to invest in positive youth development and youth entrepreneurship, and explore partnerships to provide greater access to funding for business start-up. Peace Corps should replicate the Grassroots Soccer Program and community-based www.feedthefuture.gov | 6 Findings Conclusions Recommendations opportunities to learn about health and nutrition. 3. HIV/AIDS: In Zambia, a high-risk country, HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention were facilitated through large events with the Grassroots Soccer Program and community-based health volunteers. 4. Climate: Peace Corps trained beneficiaries in conservation farming and other environment-friendly practices. HIV/AIDS volunteers to expand geographic coverage.  Peace Corps should continue to train beneficiaries in conservation farming and other environment-friendly practices to increase their resilience to climate change. Evaluation Question 2 The requirements of PAPA have improved the quality of M&E training within Peace Corps. The increased capacity of some PCVs in M&E is improving their ability to integrate M&E in project design, thus improving the likelihood that implementation of activities will achieve expected results. During its Annual Reflection Process, Peace Corps reviews the results of its interventions and draws lessons from them to better support PCVs, improve implementation and the achievement of results. This process feeds into PC’s Integrated Planning and Budget System, which is PC’s internal process for strategic planning. The collection, analysis, reporting, and use of performance monitoring data supported the implementation of program activities as follows:   The increased M&E capacity of some PCVs enabled them to integrate M&E in the design of interventions, thus increasing the likelihood that they will achieve expected results. Performance monitoring data is used by Peace Corps to feed into its Integrated Planning and Budget System, which is its internal process for strategic planning.    Peace Corps should include in its M&E training for PCVs the importance of integrating M&E during the design of their projects to increase their effectiveness. Mirroring its Annual Reflection Process, Peace Corps should promote the use of monitoring data to improve implementation at a level closer to PCVs, such as the community or work zone level. All PCVs interviewed believe there is too much focus on numbers in Feed the Future indicators and not enough on qualitative information. As a result, they stated that there is a temptation to “rush to scale up activities” that can be easily quantified and to inflate numbers. Areas for improvement include:  The exclusive focus of Feed the Future indicators on numbers, with the risk of negatively affecting PCVs’ implementation of activities by pressuring them toward activities that can be easily quantified, at the expense of the ones that constitute Peace USAID and Peace Corps should define qualitative indicators that better capture the contributions of PCVs, such as building relationships and facilitating processes that promote trust and ownership within their communities. www.feedthefuture.gov | 7 Findings Conclusions Recommendations Both Peace Corps staff and PCVs believe that Volunteer Report Form (VRF) is a “disaster” because it is not user-friendly. Several PCVs admitted that they often just “come up with numbers” because of the complicated reporting system. In addition, the VRF has some inherent weaknesses. For example, it does not allow specifying the length of training so sessions that are one hour and those that are one week long are recorded as if they were the same. Corps’ strengths, including building relationships and trust with community.  The VRF that PCVs use to report their activities is not user-friendly and is even confusing. As a result, the quality of data reported is reduced, as well as its ability to inform Peace Corps’ implementation and programming processes.   Peace Corps should assess the VRF by collecting data from PCVs and Peace Corps staff, and use the information collected to make it more user-friendly and improve data quality. In order to better support PCVs with M&E tasks, Peace Corps should train counterparts in participatory M&E approaches that would be appropriate in communities with low literacy levels. Evaluation Question 3 The aspects of the Peace Corps approach that made it effective in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes include:     Its responsiveness to community culture and needs, which enables PCVs to design and implement activities that are culturally appropriate and relevant for community needs. Its focus on capacity building and knowledge transfer, which promotes community ownership and increases the effectiveness and sustainability of activities implemented. The Work Zone Model, which facilitates cross-sector collaboration in PCVs’ geographic zones and enables them to better address community needs by pooling their knowledge and resources. PC’s effectiveness as a resource for the effective design and implementation of partners’ development interventions. The Several factors influenced the effectiveness of Peace Corps’ approach in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes. They include: its responsiveness to community culture and needs; its focus on capacity building and knowledge transfer; the Work Zone Model; and its effectiveness as a resource for the effective design and implementation of partners’ development interventions. Future agreements must build on these factors by:   Defining Peace Corps’ role as that of a “pre￾implementation” partner, one who builds the “foundation” that will increase the likelihood of the success of Feed the Future interventions. Such a role would enable Peace Corps to use its unique position to provide valuable information such as the context in host countries from national to community levels, priorities, opportunities, threats, and culturally appropriate and effective approaches and techniques, as well stakeholder analysis and engagement strategies. Identifying implementing partners who could work with Peace Corps to build on its work with activities that will contribute to the achievement of Feed the Future objectives by filling specific gaps. www.feedthefuture.gov | 8 Findings Conclusions Recommendations examples of its partnership with WWF and the Forest Service illustrate the effectiveness of Peace Corps in the role of “pre-implementation partner.” The most commonly cited challenge in the Peace Corps approach is its dependence on the individual motivation of PCVs, with large variations between them. At one extreme, some volunteers do minimal work in their communities, while, at the other extreme, some PCVs are very active and constantly work with communities to meet their needs. At the organizational level, Peace Corps staff members have term limits of five years, thus weakening the organization’s ability to establish an institutional memory and maintain continuity in its achievements. Within the context of the PAPA, the departure of the core technical team might negatively affect the sustainability of the results achieved so far. Peace Corps volunteers usually share information informally, mainly using WhatsApp, to ask and answer specific questions. There are no systematic processes to allow them to share information in a regular and more comprehensive manner. In order to improve its ability to achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where Volunteers work, Peace Corps needs to address the following issues:   Dependence on individual motivation and qualifications, which results in wide variations in the results achieved by volunteers. Term limits for staff and PCVs of five and two years respectively, which are considered too short to ensure the continuity and sustainability of results.      Assign PCVs to sites for which they have the technical skills required to meet community needs or apply the Work Zone Model by assigning them to work zones in which they can collaborate with other PCVs to fill their capacity gaps. Decrease the burden on PCVs to possess the technical skills and information necessary for their work by: 1) providing them with a practical guide for starting projects at their sites; and 2) establishing mechanisms that would allow for more systematic and comprehensive knowledge sharing among PCVs. Inform PCVs of their assigned sites earlier to allow them more time to learn the language and culture before starting their assignment. It would also free the time currently spent on language acquisition during Pre-Service Training (PST) to cover technical areas related to the needs in their communities. Specify expectations of PCV performance to reduce variations between volunteers. Provide more comprehensive training of counterparts to better prepare them to ensure continuity of PCVs’ activities. 1.0 EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 1.1 EVALUATION PURPOSE This is a final performance evaluation of the Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA), which is an inter-agency agreement (IAA) between Peace Corps and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Food Security (BFS). It was implemented by Peace Corps from July 2011 to October 2017. The main purpose of this performance evaluation of PAPA was to provide empirical evidence to support learning and continuous improvement for the work of the USAID/BFS and Peace Corps. The evaluation assessed: 1) progress toward desired outcomes; and 2) what worked well and what needed to be improved in the implementation of activities. The overarching goal of PAPA was to support Feed the Future initiatives to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty by tackling the root causes and employing proven strategies to achieve large scale and sustainable impact. PAPA has a total funding of $13,854,611. The funding was provided through BFS, the Africa Bureau, and seven participating Missions to enhance the Peace Corps’ food security programming. 1.2 AUDIENCE The evaluation results will be used by Peace Corps, all relevant Peace Corps agency stakeholders, USAID/BFS, participating Missions, and relevant USAID technical offices. The evaluation will also be made available to members of Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and will be made public on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). The results of this evaluation could be used by BFS and Peace Corps to improve activity effectiveness and better achieve intended results. They will also facilitate reflection for the Feed the Future initiative and Peace Corps’ future programming. Additionally, BFS will use the evaluation to inform any potential follow-on agreement to PAPA with Peace Corps. 1.3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS The evaluation questions (EQs) and sub-questions explored three specific areas related to implementation and achievement, namely: 1) outcomes; 2) planning and coordination; and 3) the Peace Corps approach by addressing the following questions: EQ 1: Outcomes 1A. To what extent has this agreement contributed to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results, specifically the eight results below: - - - - - - - - Improved agriculture productivity; Improved markets and household access to markets; Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities; Increased agriculture value chain on and off-farm jobs; Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households; Improved access to diverse and quality foods; Improved nutrition related behaviors; and Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services? 10 1B. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives? Factors to consider include: - - - Coordination between key stakeholders (Peace Corps Volunteers, Host Country Counterparts, Peace Corps Management, USAID Missions, BFS); Innovation; and External factors. 1C. For interventions positively affecting food security and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) work, how could they be replicated to maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? 1D. To what extent has this agreement contributed to Peace Corps’ crosscutting themes of gender, technology, climate, youth, HIV/AIDS, disability, and volunteerism? EQ 2: Planning and Coordination 2A. What has worked well in terms of the program planning and coordination mechanisms? What needs to be improved? What lessons have been learned? 2B. To what extent have the overall program planning and coordination mechanisms supported the implementation of program activities? - - How effectively has this agreement supported PCVs and Peace Corps management to accurately collect performance monitoring information; aggregate and analyze this information to improve performance and understand best practices; better serve communities; and better articulate the impact and value of the Peace Corps? What could be done to improve data collection, analysis, and use? At the field level, to what extent did the Peace Corps analyze and use data to adjust its activities over the past five years? 2C. What improvements could be made by the Peace Corps, by BFS, or by USAID Missions to better support the implementation of activities? EQ 3: Peace Corps Approach/Model 3A. To what extent is the Peace Corps approach (volunteer-based activities in a number of disparate sites) effective in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? 3B. What are some of the strengths of the Peace Corps approach? How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? 3C. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where Volunteers work? 2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Problem or Opportunity Addressed by the Project/Activity Being Evaluated In July 2011, the Peace Corps and USAID/BFS signed an interagency PAPA to implement activities in support of the Feed the Future initiative. The overarching goal of PAPA was to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty by tackling the root causes and employing proven strategies to achieve large scale and sustainable impact. Funding was provided through BFS’ central Statement of Work (SOW), the Africa Bureau SOW, and seven SOWs from six participating Missions (Ethiopia, Guatemala, Senegal, 11 Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) to enhance the Peace Corps’ food security programming. The global agreement expired on October 31, 2017. PCVs work to support six program areas: Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Youth in Development, and Community Economic Development. For over 50 years, PCVs have contributed to food security through specific activities in the Agriculture, Health, and Environment sectors, with additional cross-cutting efforts and activities. Volunteers serve for 27 months, contributing to a country￾level project framework or strategy that the Peace Corps country office designs in partnership with Peace Corps technical sector experts in Washington, D.C. Target Areas and Groups PAPA was implemented by Peace Corps, from July 2011 – October 2017 and funded by USAID. The total funding is $13,854,611. PAPA benefits Peace Corps posts globally through central funding for: 1) the development and dissemination of new training packages; 2) improvement of Peace Corps’ monitoring, evaluation, and reporting capacity; 3) headquarters-level technical experts; and 4) food security workshops. Additional funding from USAID Missions supported small grants for volunteer projects, post-level technical experts, and trainings. Mission buy-ins included: West Africa Regional, Guatemala, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zambia, and Senegal. Target beneficiaries were smallholder farmers and rural community members where PCVs are working. Officially, the agreement covered “any [Feed the Future] focus, aligned, or affiliated country in which Peace Corps works, or any country in which a USAID operating unit supports activities consistent with the objectives of this agreement.” 2.2 THEORY OF CHANGE PAPA is guided by Feed the Future’s programming theory of change (ToC) depicted in the Results Framework in Figure 1. The ultimate goal of PAPA is to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty by tackling their root causes and employing proven strategies for achieving large scale and sustainable impacts. USAID measured success toward this goal at the highest levels – the prevalence of poverty and stunted children – alongside other key measures of progress that contributed to this goal. In addition, Peace Corps and USAID identified two key objectives, which address the principal determinants of food insecurity: 1) accelerating inclusive agriculture sector growth; and 2) improving nutritional status. These objectives have direct causal linkages to sustainably reducing hunger and poverty. Progress towards meeting goals and objectives were measured against indicators in the Feed the Future Results Framework in Figure 1. Measures of impact at the national level represented the combined efforts of many partners, most importantly the countries themselves. USAID and the Peace Corps facilitated this process through investments in eight program areas and their associated intermediate results (IRs) that have been demonstrated to be key drivers of agriculture-led growth and improved nutrition, namely: 1. Improved agriculture productivity 2. Improved markets and household access to markets 3. Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities 4. Increased agriculture value chain on and off-farm jobs 5. Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households 6. Improved access to diverse and quality foods 7. Improved nutrition related behaviors 8. Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services. 12 Figure 1: Feed the Future Results Framework 2.3 APPROACH AND IMPLEMENTATION In 2011, Peace Corps and USAID entered into a global IAA to support Peace Corps’ programming and efforts in food security. The IAA facilitated the transfer of Feed the Future funds to Peace Corps through a reimbursable agreement. There have been seven Mission-based and two Washington-based participating SOWs over the course of the agreement. Each SOW was added through modifications to the agreement (except Africa Bureau, which was part of the initial agreement), and was managed at the country level by a designated Peace Corps staff member and USAID Mission Activity Manager, or at the headquarters level by the Peace Corps’ program office (OPATS), and the Peace Corps’ Office of Strategic Partnerships (OSP) and USAID/BFS. The nine SOWs were: 1) Africa Bureau (Central funding) (2011); 2) West Africa Regional (2011); 3) BFS (Central funding) (2011); 4) Ethiopia (2012); 5) Guatemala (2012); 6) Uganda (2012); 7) Tanzania (2013); 8) Zambia (2013); and 9) Senegal (2013). Central funding from Africa Bureau and BFS supported the development and distribution of new training packages, strengthening Peace Corps’ monitoring, evaluation, and reporting capacity, headquarters-level technical experts, and global workshops for knowledge dissemination. Country-level funding from USAID Missions went toward small grants for volunteer projects, post-level technical experts, and trainings. Peace Corps focuses on the transfer of skills and knowledge from Volunteers to host country national counterparts, which includes both informal and formal counterparts. A counterpart is a person in a 13     Volunteer’s host community who works alongside the Volunteer. Counterparts work with Volunteers to improve the lives of members of the communities where Volunteers live. Activities under this agreement included capacity building and knowledge transfer of improved agricultural and natural resource management practices, nutrition practices, and small business skills, with the expectation that Volunteers, their counterparts, and community members would use these new skills and practices to achieve desired outcomes. 2.3.1 Project Implementation in Zambia Peace Corps Zambia aims to achieve two key objectives: 1) accelerating inclusive agriculture sector growth; and 2) improving nutritional status by implementing activities in four areas – agriculture, education, environment, and health:     Agriculture through the Rural Aquaculture Promotion (RAP) Project: assisted smallholder rural farmers to apply new and improved aquaculture practices that sustainably increase fish production, consumption, and incomes. RAP Volunteers helped communities initiate and improve their fishponds, improve management, increase fish production, integrate aquaculture with agriculture, increase incomes from ponds, and strengthen fish farming groups. Education through the Rural Education Development (RED) Project: improved counterpart English proficiency, teaching skills, and participation in professional development, with the aim to improve English language instruction and conversational English proficiency for students. Environment through the Linking Income Food and Environment (LIFE) Project: addressed the issue of conserving natural resources through promotion of agroforestry, soil conservation and management, improved gardening techniques, and teaching of basic business skills. Health through the Community Health Improvement Project (CHIP): aimed to improve rural health, focusing on HIV/AIDS awareness, malaria, maternal and child health, food security, and nutrition. Volunteers worked to facilitate the formation and training of community￾based organizations that spearheaded the planning, implementation, and sustainable management of community-led intervention in malaria, food security, HIV/AIDS mitigation and management, and other community-identified health priorities. 2.3.2 Project Implementation in Senegal Peace Corps Senegal uses an integrated approach to achieve two key objectives: 1) accelerating inclusive agriculture sector growth; and 2) improving nutritional status. More specifically, PCVs in Senegal work in four areas – agriculture, agroforestry, community economic development, and health as follows: Agriculture with two components: 1) Sustainable Agriculture in rural settings to improve crop harvests, long-term soil fertility, and vegetable gardens; and 2) Urban Agriculture with activities that focus on school, community, and rooftop gardens. Agroforestry: supported community members to plant trees for food production, improved soil fertility, and enhanced agricultural harvests. Volunteers trained villagers in fruit tree orchard management, live fencing for crop protection, and inter-planting trees with crops to improve harvests. Community Economic Development: supported entrepreneurs and enterprise groups in four areas – solid waste management, ecotourism, artisanal production, and agribusiness, including food transformation. Health: aimed to improve community health, focusing on malaria prevention, water and sanitation, nutrition, and common childhood illnesses. 14 Volunteers worked individually across sectors to achieve objectives and also through cross-sector activities, such as the Master Farmer Program, in which Volunteers supported local farmers to demonstrate sustainable agricultural techniques, and trained community members in agricultural and agroforestry technologies, nutrition, and farm budget management. 3.0 EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 3.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 3.1.1 Evaluation Design This evaluation used a case study design, which allowed for in-depth description and analysis of Peace Corps activities, while taking into account the surrounding context within each country. Evaluation questions were addressed using multiple sources of evidence, combining qualitative and quantitative monitoring data. This proposed mixed methods approach enabled the team to triangulate quantitative and qualitative data in order to cross-validate evaluation findings. Due to budget constraints and the geographic spread of activities, fieldwork for the evaluation was conducted in two countries: Senegal and Zambia. In addition, data was collected from relevant staff of USAID and Peace Corps headquarters in Washington, D.C. Purposive sampling was used to: 1) select the most appropriate data sources to answer evaluation questions; 2) ensure a balance between agricultural and nutrition-related activities; and 3) include women and their activities. 3.2 DATA COLLECTION Data was collected at USAID and Peace Corps headquarters in Washington, D.C. between April 3 and April 7, 2017. Fieldwork was carried out between April 10 and April 15, 2017 in Zambia, and between April 18 and April 23,2 2017 in Senegal. In both countries, local consultants were hired to serve as interpreters with interviewees who did not speak English. 3.2.1 Data Collection Methods and Tools Data were collected through various methods, namely document review, focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interviews (KIIs), observation, and digital photography. Data collected were triangulated to examine consistency of evidence across different data sources and data collection methods as a means of obtaining verification. The various data collection methods are discussed below. Document Review Various documents were reviewed including agreements, performance management plans (PMP), project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks, annual reports, and the Process Evaluation of the Peace Corps/Senegal Master Farmer Program. More specifically, the ET reviewed documents that were relevant to the PAPA program and to the evaluation questions. Annex 7 provides a list of the documents that were reviewed by the ET. In addition, the ET obtained the most up-to-date project performance indicator data through the review of the 2016 annual progress reports for Senegal and Zambia. This data was used to determine progress towards achieving expected results for various project objectives. The data covered the period 2014 to 2016 to help address evaluation question 1A, which assesses the extent to which the project achieved expected results. 2 The team was given approval for a seven-day workweek during fieldwork because of the unavailability of Peace Corps staff between this date and volunteers’ departure for the summer. 15 Key Informant Interviews Key informants were selected based on their role and their ability to provide information related to at least one of the three evaluation questions. The ET interviewed Peace Corps staff, USAID staff, PCVs, Peace Corps partners, and PCV counterparts. When key informants worked together on specific project activities, they were interviewed as a group. Key informant interview guides for the various groups of key informants are provided in Annex 2. Since these tools are guides and not questionnaires, they allow evaluators to adapt the language and order of questions to facilitate the interview like a conversation, as long as all questions are asked and their meaning is preserved. Evaluators took handwritten notes of interview responses, separating them by question. Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussions were used to collect information on the opinions and perceptions of target beneficiaries regarding project activities, in particular the implementation process, results achieved, as well any successes and challenges. The FGD guide is provided in Annex 3. During FGDs, evaluators used the template in Annex 4 to take handwritten notes of participants’ key points and themes, as well as any interesting quotes. Observation and Digital Photography Observation and digital photography were used to gather additional information about project activities that were visible, such as farmers’ fields, gardens, chicken coops, nurseries, and goat pens. Evaluators asked questions on site in order to provide the necessary context for observations and photographs, and to best link them to the relevant evaluation question. Data sources included Peace Corps staff, USAID staff, PCVs, Peace Corps partners,3 PCV counterparts, and community beneficiaries. As summarized in Table 1 below, the ET met with 126 people. Table 1: Data Collection Methods, Data Sources and Number of People Interviewed for the Evaluation by Site Data Collection Method Data Sources Washington D.C. Zambia Senegal Total Key Informant Interviews USAID 2 2 2 6 Key Informant Interviews Peace Corps Staff 7 5 12 24 Key Informant Interviews Peace Corps Volunteers 5 13 18 Key Informant Interviews Peace Corps Partners 6 14 20 Key Informant Interviews Volunteer Counterparts4 9 (6 men, 3 women) 6 (5 men, 1 woman) 15 Focus Group Discussions Beneficiaries 17 (14 women, 3 men) 26 (12 women, 14 men) 43 3 Partners work with the Peace Corps to implement selected activities. 4 Counterparts were treated as beneficiaries in the analysis of the data collected. 16 Data Collection Method Data Sources Washington D.C. Zambia Senegal Total TOTAL 9 44 73 126 3.2.2 Data Collection Process and Procedures Informed Consent Before interviews or FGDs, participants were asked to read or listen to the content of the informed consent form in Annex 5. Specifically, they were provided with the reason for the evaluation being conducted and its purpose. They were given the evaluators’ names and notified of the voluntary and confidential nature of their participation, and were told that there would be no direct benefits for participating. After answering any questions they had, evaluators asked them to sign or give verbal consent by agreeing with the concluding statement of informed consent: “I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.” Quality Control In order to ensure quality control of data collection, participant responses were written down using a structured format aligned with the evaluation questions. In addition, evaluators reviewed the data collected, crosschecked their notes, and made any necessary clarifications. Finally, in order to ensure that focus group members communicated openly, they were selected to form homogeneous groups, minimizing differences in factors such as position and influence. Preparation of Datasets for Public Use As indicated in ADS Chapter 579 (USAID Development Data), the data collected will be prepared for submission to USAID’s Development Data Library (DDL). More specifically, notes of responses for individual KIIs and FGDs will be typed, removing any personally identifiable information. Data Management and Security In accordance with USAID’s ADS Chapter 508 (Privacy Program), the handwritten notes of KIIs were secured in a locked suitcase to secure respondents’ Personally Identifiable Information (PII). PII is defined as any information, which can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity. For this evaluation, such information was limited to names, titles, and geographic location, which were removed during data analysis. 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS Qualitative data collected through KIIs and FGDs were analyzed through content analysis. A systematic process was used, applying the following steps: 1) organize the data collected by evaluation question, consolidating responses for each stakeholder group; 2) reduce data into meaningful categories; 3) identify emerging patterns and themes; 4) identify any connections between themes; and 5) draw conclusions. The data extracted from the Senegal and Zambia performance reports were analyzed to show change of the key performance indicators between 2014 and 2016. The numbers were exported to Excel and used to develop charts that show the aggregate values and change in numbers over the three-year period. 17 3.4 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The methodologies used in this evaluation had a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, because the main purpose of this evaluation was to gain in-depth understanding about the program in order to inform learning and continuous improvement, a case study design with a strong reliance on qualitative data design was used. The emphasis on qualitative data means that it is not possible to generalize findings. However, the ET worked with both BFS and Peace Corps to revise and finalize evaluation questions. Defining the evaluation questions collaboratively and the mixed methods approach with multiple data sources generated useful and credible information. Second, because of security reasons, the ET could not obtain a list of all sites in Peace Corps’ Zone of Influence (ZOI). Therefore, non-random sampling was used, which might have introduced bias in the site selection process. Third, language interpretation was needed during the data collection process, which increased the risks of bias and errors in interpretation. However, in order to minimize these risks, independent interpreters were hired. Fourth, based on an informal Data Quality Assessment (presented in Annex 6), the team found that the quality of indicator data submitted by PCVs was insufficient. The submitted quantitative data could not be exclusively relied on to draw conclusions for this evaluation. Therefore, the qualitative data collected were essential in cross-validating the data to determine Peace Corps’ contributions to Feed the Future’s objectives. In addition, data triangulation across sources and methods should reduce the effect of methodological limitations. In Senegal, although the FGDs were set up separately for each stakeholder group, most of the meetings were scheduled at the same time. For example, on April 22, 2017, from 9:30 to 11:00 AM, the ET was scheduled to meet with members of three different stakeholder groups, and in order to stay on schedule, evaluators had to collect data separately using the different data collection tools as appropriate. The groups included the PCV’s counterparts, beneficiaries who were members of a women’s group, and a PCV. In Zambia, the ET members collected data together and the data were also triangulated across evaluators. Fifth, time and timing for fieldwork were a constraint. Timing was affected by the fact that Peace Corps volunteers were leaving their posts for the summer holidays, hence, the available dates to schedule interviews with them were limited. In addition, the ET traveled long distances between implementation sites. This was particularly true in Senegal, where the team covered more than 900 miles crossing the country from Dakar to Kedougou. The reduced fieldwork schedule and long distances decreased data collection time. 4.0 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The data collected during this evaluation were analyzed to fulfill the evaluation’s main purpose, which was “to provide empirical evidence to respond to evaluation questions designed to support learning and continuous improvement for Peace Corps’ and BFS’ work.” For all evaluation questions, when findings are not specified for Senegal or Zambia, they apply to both countries. 4.1 EVALUATION QUESTION 1: OUTCOMES 4.1.1 To what extent has this Agreement contributed to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results? A. Evaluation Context Before discussing the contributions of this Agreement to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives and intermediate results (IRs), it is important to highlight organizational differences between USAID and 18 Peace Corps, which emerged during the evaluation and provided a particular context for it. As discussed below, the difference between the values of each organization resulted in different ways of defining what constituted contributions to Feed the Future objectives. The Agreement (PAPA) signed between USAID and Peace Corps on July 28, 2011, states that it “will support a broad range of activities in furtherance of mutual development goals of USAID and Peace Corps in food security.” For USAID, which leads the Feed the Future initiative, the overarching goal is to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty. Furthermore, the Agreement indicated that “USAID will measure success toward this goal at the highest levels, namely the prevalence of poverty and underweight children,” focusing on the two key Feed the Future objectives to be measured, as follows:   For Objective 1, Accelerate Inclusive Agriculture Sector Growth, progress would be measured through change in agricultural production, agriculture value added per person (i.e., the income derived from agricultural production), and in the incomes of both men and women in rural areas, including men and women who are very poor. For Objective 2, Improve Nutritional Status (especially for women and children), progress would be measured by focusing on the change in the prevalence of stunted and wasted children and the prevalence of underweight women. USAID’s proposed measures of project success emphasized quantifiable differences referred to as “change” in the variables listed in both objectives. In its 2017 Global Food Security Implementation Plan, which describes the agency-wide food security strategy, Peace Corps states that it contributes to the mitigation of food insecurity by “building local capacity at the individual, group, and community level to promote sustainability.” Therefore, as was observed during fieldwork, Peace Corps focuses more on the capacity building processes that will facilitate the achievement of results. In addition, although USAID emphasized the highest levels of results, Peace Corps focused its work at the individual, group, and community levels. These differences in expected results between USAID and Peace Corps can be observed by examining Feed the Future indicators. For example, USAID requires Peace Corps to report the “number of individuals who have received [U.S. Government] USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training” in targeted communities, with the expectation that this training will be applied and contribute to increases in quantitative variables such as income or agricultural production. Therefore, the perception is that USAID places value on the quantity of people trained. However, Peace Corps builds the capacity of a few selected community members based on their needs and interests, while emphasizing relationships and trust. All PCVs and their counterparts indicated that the most successful initiatives begin with training a small number of community “champions” who then share their newly acquired knowledge and skills with other community members. Therefore, Peace Corps does not place emphasis on the quantity of people trained but rather on their quality. Based on the data collected, such “quality” is demonstrated by trainees who apply and share what they learn. For Peace Corps, this approach increases the likelihood that results will be achieved in a way that is culturally responsive and sustainable. Furthermore, activities such as building relationships and trust are difficult to quantify, and would require qualitative indicators, which PAPA did not capture and include in their PMP. More details about Peace Corps’ work are provided below, in the findings for evaluation question 3, which discusses the Peace Corps approach. B. Contributions to Feed the Future’s Eight Program Areas FINDINGS Peace Corps works at the individual, group, and community levels in communities where it is hard to collect the type of quantitative data expected to measure Feed the Future results. Variables such as the size of farms and incomes are not measured accurately, if at all, mainly because PCVs and community 19 members are neither qualified nor equipped to do so. Farm sizes, which tend to be small, are determined using what one PCV referred to as “guesstimates.” When beneficiaries and PCVs were asked about changes in incomes, they offered proxy measures such as the ability to improve living conditions, pay for school fees, or purchase cattle or farm equipment. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, based on an informal Data Quality Assessment discussed in Annex 6, the ET concluded that the quality of indicator data submitted by PCVs was insufficient to be relied on to draw conclusions for this evaluation. Therefore, the qualitative data collected was essential in determining Peace Corps’ contributions to Feed the Future’s eight program and their associated IRs, namely: 1. Improved agriculture productivity (IR1); 2. Improved markets and household access to markets (IR2); 3. Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities (IR3); 4. Increased agriculture value chain on and off-farm jobs (IR4); 5. Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households (IR5); 6. Improved access to diverse and quality foods (IR6); 7. Improved nutrition related behaviors (IR7); and 8. Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services (IR8). Contributions to the various program areas are summarized below: Contributions to Improved agriculture productivity (IR1) Out of the six current Feed the Future indicators for which Peace Corps collects data in Zambia and Senegal, five are related to IR1: Improved agricultural productivity. Table 2, below, provides the number and description of these indicators, based on the July 2016 indicator definitions (Feed the Future, 2016), while Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the achievements in improved agricultural productivity for Zambia and Senegal, respectively. Table 2: Indicators for Improve Agricultural Productivity Indicators for Improved Agricultural Productivity (IR1) Indicator number Indicator Description EG.3.2-1 Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training EG.3.2-4 Number of producers' organizations, water users associations, and community-based organizations (CBOs), trade and business associations, and CBOs receiving USG assistance EG.3.2.-17 Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance EG.3.2-18 Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result if USG assistance EG.3.2.-20 Number of private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, trade and business associations and CBOs who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance Figures 2 to 6 show project achievements per year from 2014 to 2016 for each of the five performance indicators in both Senegal and Zambia. Although, in Zambia, Feed the Future activities started late in 2014 because the Food Security Coordinator was hired only in June, the project achieved high values in all performance indicators. The values achieved in 2014 kept increasing and by 2016, the aggregate 20 values of all five performance indicators had increased for both countries. According to the 2016 Annual Progress Reports, the overall total values of each of the five performance indicators for Zambia were noticeably higher than those for Senegal in the three-year period. For example, Figure 2, shows that the actual values for the indicator Number of individuals who have received USG supported short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training had increased from 2,447 to a total of 10,484 in 2016 for Senegal versus 5,356 to 13,707 for Zambia. Figure 2: Number of Individuals Who Received USG Supported Training by Country More results in Figure 3, show that for the indicator Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance, actual values for Zambia increased from 2,386 in 2014 to 5,630 in 2016, while for Senegal these values were 343 in 2014 and 1,756 in 2016. Figure 4, shows progress in both countries on the Number of producer organizations, water users associations, trade and business associations, and CBOs receiving USG assistance, which increased from 27 to 187 for Senegal, and from 121 to 380 in Zambia between 2014 and 2016. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 Senegal Zambia 2014 2015 2016 Total Figure 3: Number of Farmers Who Applied New Technologies or Management Practices Figure 3: Achieved Number of Farmers who Applied New Technologies or Management Practices (EG.3.2.-17) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Senegal Zambia 2014 2015 2016 Total 21 Figure 4: Number of Producer Organizations, Associations, and CBOs Receiving USG Assistance 0 100 200 300 400 Senegal Zambia Figure 4: Achieved Number of Producer Organizations, Associations, and CBOs Receiving USG Assistance (EG.3.2.-17) 2014 2015 2016 Total Figure 5 presents achievements for the indicator Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance. The results show that from 2014 to 2016, for Senegal it increased from 16 to 195 and for Zambia, from 231 to 500. Similarly, Figure 6, shows the Number of private enterprises, producers organizations, water users associations, trade and business associations and CBOs who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance. From 2014 to 2016, the numbers increased from 19 to 78 for Senegal and 37 to 165 for Zambia. Figure 5: Progress in Number of Hectares Under Improved Technologies or Management Practices by Country 22 Figure 6: Number of Private Organizations, Associations, and CBOs Who Applied New Technologies and Management Practices with USG Assistance 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Senegal Zambia 2014 2015 2016 Total The results indicate that both Zambia and Senegal have made progress in all five key program performance indicators. However, in both countries, Peace Corps staff and volunteers consistently expressed concerns with data quality. In Senegal, data cleaning efforts are facilitated by the Dream Team established in 2014. In each region, one PCV for each sector was selected to be trained in M&E and provide M&E support to other PCVs, focusing on the appropriate use of data collection tools and reporting. Evidence of data cleaning by Peace Corps Senegal’s team is provided in its PAPA 2016 Annual Progress Report, where it explains that it “had to eliminate some cases that PCVs reported because they were not supported by the source data collection tools or other evidence that supports the reported numbers.” Nevertheless, as discussed below, the qualitative data collected during this evaluation supports the overall conclusion drawn from quantitative results that Peace Corps activities in both countries contributed to improving agricultural productivity. Table 3: Contributions to Improved Agriculture Productivity (IR1) IMPROVED AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY (IR1) Program Area and General Comments Illustrative Activities Results Barriers to Growth/Success IR1: Improved agriculture productivity was the area with the most visible and consistent results across the communities visited. However, beneficiaries faced constraints that limited the growth of their activities and even required them to About 31 percent (18 out of 58, including 8 women) of beneficiaries adopted new crop varieties and/or improved agricultural practices that increased yields and crop quality. Women’s Groups trained by Peace The 31 percent of beneficiaries who indicated adopting new varieties and/or improved agricultural practices increased their yields (mainly in orange maize and orange-fleshed sweet potato in Zambia, moringa and cashews in Senegal, and fruits and vegetables in both countries). Improved practices included double￾Beneficiaries indicated that yields and incomes had been limited by the following: lack of water by 38 percent (22 out of 58, including 15 women); destruction of crops by animals due to the absence of fences for 26 percent (15 out of 58 including 9 women); and lack of essential equipment and supplies 23 IMPROVED AGRICULTURE PRODUCTIVITY (IR1) Program Area and General Comments Illustrative Activities Results Barriers to Growth/Success stop during dry seasons when water is scarce. Corps started or scaled-up gardens. digging, application of manure, bush fire management, composting, etc. About 57 percent (33 out of 58, including 21 women) of beneficiaries indicated increasing their incomes. 5 Main proxy indicators for increases in income were: ability to pay for school fees, building houses, purchasing cattle, reduction in need to borrow money, and ability to purchase groceries and medicine. by 34 percent (20 out of 58, including 15 women). The above discussion and graphics highlight the following:   Feed the Future activities focused mainly on improving agricultural productivity, in particular through the adoption of improved varieties and agricultural practices, resulting in increased yields and incomes. However, these increases were constrained by a lack of essential inputs such as water, equipment, and supplies. In addition, without fences to protect crops, animals ate them. Feed the Future activities effectively reached women. However, they were disproportionately affected by constraints that reduced their capacity to increase their yields and incomes. More specifically, women made up 75 percent of beneficiaries affected by such constraints. Table 4, below, summarizes the contribution of Peace Corps activities to the other seven Feed the Future program areas. In addition to the five indicators related to IR1 (Improved agricultural productivity), the sixth required Feed the Future indicator reported by Peace Corps Zambia and Senegal is Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs. This indicator is related to IR6 (Improved access to diverse and quality foods), IR7 (Improved nutrition related behaviors), and IR8 (Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services). The results show that, in Zambia, this indicator increased from 1537 to 4245 individuals between 2014 and 2016. In Senegal, the number of individuals receiving nutrition related professional training through USG-supported programs also increased from 2045 to 3669 in the three years. The higher increase for Zambia compared to Senegal (2708 vs. 1624) is consistent with the qualitative data collected, which indicated that Peace Corps Zambia implemented more nutrition-related activities in partnership with the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI). More specifically, Peace Corps Zambia used a systematic approach by training farmers, and giving them seeds and cuttings of orange maize and orange-fleshed sweet potato to promote the adoption of these nutrient-dense foods. In addition, a nutritionist from ZARI trained communities about the benefits of these foods and gave cooking demonstrations with tastings to increase consumption. The qualitative data also show that in Senegal, the assumption seemed 5 Since beneficiaries do not keep financial records, increases in incomes were determined by proxy measures such as the ability to improve living conditions, pay for school fees, or purchase cattle or farm equipment. 24 to be that training community members to produce better quality vegetables and fruits would lead to higher yields and household consumption. But in reality, the lack of water and the exposure of crops to livestock decreased the production of farmers, who sometimes stopped farming during the dry season. As indicated earlier, Senegal’s more cautious approach to including PCV data in its reports might also explain its lower numbers in terms of results achieved compared to Zambia’s. Moreover, for this particular indicator, it was noted and explained in the annual report as follows: “Though Volunteers conducted many trainings on child health and nutrition, we did not receive original data source evidence from Volunteers so we were unable to justify the data and thus unable to include any data for this indicator” (Peace Corps Senegal, PAPA Annual Report, 2015). Table 4: Contribution of Peace Corps Activities to the Other Seven Feed the Future Program Areas CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEED THE FUTURE’S OTHER SEVEN PROGRAM AREAS Program Area and General Comments Illustrative Activities Results Barriers to Growth/Success IR2: Improved markets and household access to markets were one of the greatest needs expressed by beneficiaries and PCVs. Even when they were satisfied with their level of production, they indicated that they got “stuck” when they wanted to sell them. The examples cited here were exceptions, but they suggest what is possible. Kagunda Women’s Group in Zambia trained in sewing and business skills sells its products in Lusaka shops, hotels, embassies, and even exports to the U.S. In Senegal, a poultry and chicken feed business trained by Peace Corps, with a grinder and mixer funded by Peace Corps, locally produces chicken feed, selling all its supply. Increased incomes. Jobs created by hiring women to help sew or men to help process and/or sell feed during periods of high demand. Provide examples to other beneficiaries of how to succeed in business. Both businesses do not have the means to purchase equipment that would enable them to significantly grow their business. Women’s Group needs additional sewing machines. Chicken feed business needs a granulator to make feed of commercial grade (homogeneous). IR3: Increased agriculture value chain on and off￾farm jobs. Peace Corps’ work is typically limited to farm production in the agricultural value chain. Agricultural value chain activities beyond production emerged as the area with the greatest potential to increase Peace Corps’ contributions to food security. The above-mentioned chicken feed business in Senegal is one the few to engage in processing. In Senegal, Peace Corps provided training on growing moringa and processing it into flour for nutrition improvement, which has been adopted only on a small scale but has great potential for growth due to increasing demand. Increased incomes. Jobs created. Insufficient means to expand processing activities because of the lack of equipment such as a granulator for chicken feed. Limited processing of moringa because of insufficient training and the lack of capital to acquire equipment and supplies to process moringa. IR4: Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition￾related activities. Peace Corps does not intervene in this area. N/A N/A N/A 25 CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEED THE FUTURE’S OTHER SEVEN PROGRAM AREAS Program Area and General Comments Illustrative Activities Results Barriers to Growth/Success IR5: Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households. Peace Corps enabled communities to diversify income sources by engaging in new income￾generating activities. In addition, Peace Corps worked with communities to increase resilience to climate change and prevent vulnerability caused by HIV/AIDS, especially in Zambia. Peace Corps helped beneficiaries start new competitive income￾generating activities, including fruit trees, beekeeping, sewing, and animal husbandry. A non-governmental organization (NGO) strengthened by Peace Corps is partnering with them to organize and coordinate mangrove reforestation involving community members in 17 villages, with about 50 percent women. Grassroots Soccer Program in Zambia draws about 600 people for soccer games, with activities for HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention, and HIV testing with information about treatment for those who test positive. Diversification of income sources increased resilience. Reforestation protects the livelihoods of farming households in surrounding areas. Increased HIV/AIDS awareness promotes prevention and encourages HIV positive beneficiaries to seek treatment. For income generating activities, the main barriers to growth and success are the lack of essential inputs such as water, the limited access to markets, and the lack of business management skills. IR6: Improved access to diverse and quality foods. Peace Corps introduced new nutrient-dense crop varieties and provided nutrition training to improve household diets. Peace Corps trained farmers and promoted adoption of new high￾yielding nutrient-dense crop varieties such as orange-fleshed sweet potato and orange maize. Peace Corps trained farmers in fruit growing, and focused on women and school staff and students in vegetable gardening. Increased access to diverse nutrient-dense foods. The food habits of communities slow the adoption rate of new crops that are meant to replace older more familiar ones, such as orange maize, which is more nutritious than the Zambian staple of white maize. IR7: Improved nutrition related behaviors. Peace Corps provided nutrition training as well as cooking demonstrations and tastings In Zambia, Peace Corps partnered with ZARI to deliver nutrition training, cooking demonstrations, and tastings to increase households’ consumption of orange-fleshed sweet potato and orange maize, Improved nutritional status of targeted households. Women in these households act as “champions” to increase consumption of diverse and nutrient-dense Due to high demand and revenue potential of nutrient-dense foods, an increasing number of farmers are selling them at the expense of household consumption. 26 CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEED THE FUTURE’S OTHER SEVEN PROGRAM AREAS Program Area and General Comments Illustrative Activities Results Barriers to Growth/Success which have higher values than traditional varieties. In Senegal, Peace Corps provided training in nutrition and cooking demonstrations to increase households’ consumption of moringa, nuts, fruits, and vegetables. foods in their communities. IR8: Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services. Peace Corps increased awareness and use of health and nutrition services for mothers and children through training, awareness campaigns, and household-based services. Peace Corps distributed bed nets and trained motivated community members as health volunteers to test and treat patients with malaria in their homes because community members resisted using health facilities even with a fever. In Senegal, Peace Corps trained women’s health association to conduct Integrated Home Visits to improve household nutrition and child and maternal health. Improved household health. Effective disease prevention at community level. Loss of motivation and absenteeism of health volunteers who receive no compensation and use their own means for transportation and communications. CONCLUSIONS 1. As indicated in the table above, except for except Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities, Peace Corps contributes to all Feed the Future program areas. However, its contributions to two other program areas are limited:   Improved markets and household access to markets: main constraints to achieving results in this area are: lack of capital to grow businesses to be more competitive in markets; poor transportation infrastructure; and the lack of business planning and management. Increased agriculture value chain on and off-farm jobs: Peace Corps activities usually end at the farm production stage. However, increased agricultural value chain activities beyond production, in particular processing, emerged as the area with the greatest potential for growth to increase farm income and on and off-farm employment. 2. Peace Corps achieved results in the other five program areas, namely: 1) improved agriculture productivity; 2) increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households; 3) improved access to diverse and quality foods; 4) improved nutrition related behaviors; and 5) improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services. Its greatest investments and results were in increasing agricultural productivity, focusing on high-yielding varieties and nutrient-dense foods, which 27 increased incomes, and improved nutrition and resilience of beneficiaries. However, several barriers limited these outcomes, especially for women. They include:      Limited or no access to markets, which limited sales and thus revenues; The lack of water, which was one of the main constraints to productivity; The lack of capital to grow businesses (for purchase of inputs, equipment, supplies, etc.); Destruction of crops by animals because of the lack of fences to protect them; and Sales of nutrient-dense foods competing with the household consumption of such foods. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above conclusions, it is recommended that: 1. Peace Corps integrate entrepreneurship in its training for agricultural production and other income-generating activities, in particular the identification of business opportunities with the greatest potential for success and the development of effective marketing strategies. Successful businesses will increase beneficiaries’ means to obtain the resources they need to sustain and even grow their businesses. 2. Peace Corps’ capacity-building activities expand beyond production in the agricultural value chain and include, at minimum, the processing and marketing stages of the value chain to increase jobs and incomes. 3. Peace Corps and USAID identify partners, including the private sector, who could work with Peace Corps to build on its work with interventions such as: providing essential resources like wells; direct links to markets; fences to protect crops; and funding for business development. 4.1.2 What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives? A. Positive Factors FINDINGS Factors that positively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives include: Effective Technical Assistance The PAPA agreement allowed for the recruitment of staff that “rejuvenated” agriculture and food security activities at Peace Corps Headquarters, allowing for better support of posts. More specifically, staff in the Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (OPATS) provided technical support and organized regional training events. In addition, they developed or updated essential resources such as technical manuals, training packages, and Training of Trainers (TOT) workshop materials. Training materials were developed in a participatory manner with posts and tested to ensure relevance and Figure 7: Peace Partner and His Staff 28 effectiveness. As a result, there are now standardized training materials for extension work. The Food Security Coordinator (FSC) in Zambia was not based in the capital, but rather 350 miles away in Chipata, in the USAID ZOI. This improved the implementation of activities as he provided regular technical backstopping for projects with activities such as beekeeping, mushroom raising, nutrition, orange-flesh sweet potato, and orange maize. He also offered additional resources to PCVs through workshops, training, technical information, and phone calls. In addition, his knowledge of the region enabled him to support PCVs in developing and implementing activities that were relevant and culturally appropriate mainly through regular field visits, workshops, training, guides, and phone calls. PCVs in other areas of Zambia only receive support from the Peace Corps staff in Lusaka, which is not as regular and focused because of the distance and the resulting challenge for regular follow-up. To determine the value added by the FSC’s presence and technical support in the ZOI region, the ET compared results achieved in ZOI with those in non-ZOI regions. Figure 8 shows that the ZOI contributed 51 percent to Feed the Future objectives compared to 49 percent for non-ZOI provinces in Zambia (Peace Corps Zambia PAPA Annual Progress Report, 2016). Figure 8: Contributions to Feed the Future Objectives of Zambia's ZOI vs. Non-ZOI Non ZOI (6 other Provinces) 49% Eastern Province (ZOI) 51% Total Percentage Contributions to the Indicators Successful Adoption of New Varieties and Agricultural Practices Improved agricultural practices perceived as the most effective in increasing yields and crop quality include: the selection of good seeds, composting, double digging, the use of manure, integrated pest management, pruning, crop rotation, and proper harvesting techniques. New varieties introduced mainly consisted of orange-fleshed sweet potatoes, orange maize, and fruit trees in Zambia; and cashews, fruit trees, and moringa in Senegal. 29 Figure 9: A Woman Farmer and Her Fruit Tree Nursery The most effective means to increase the adoption of new varieties and improved agricultural practices was the evidence of increased yields and higher quality crops in the field of farmers who adopted them. In Zambia, the owner of an orchard has been an effective partner for Peace Corps in training farmers, mainly in growing fruit trees. His successful agricultural business now sells in all 10 Zambian provinces, and has drawn the support of village chiefs in the Eastern Province who plan to give him land to grow macadamia. This Peace Corps capacity building approach was replicated in the ZOI using successful farmers in communities to train other farmers. As more farmers have established nurseries and distributed trees, farmer demand for fruit trees has increased dramatically. According to the Peace Corps partner, before PAPA activities the Eastern Province was sixth out of the 10 provinces in Zambia. Today, it accounts for 80 percent of the demand, a position previously occupied by Lusaka. According to two Master Farmers in Senegal, the fact that the quality and yields of their crops have visibly increased as a result of new varieties and improved agricultural practices has encouraged adoption in their communities. A woman Master Farmer has inspired other women to grow new crop varieties using improved agricultural practices. In addition, every year each Master Farmer is required to organize a field day. These days include demonstrations like comparison plots illustrating different techniques such as conventional and conservation farming and improved pest management techniques. Farmers in and outside their communities are invited, as are government officials and members of partner organizations. New varieties were adopted in part due to the perception that they would had higher revenue potential due to increased yields, high demand, higher prices, and resistance to disease and pests. New varieties contribute to diversification and reduce farmer’s dependence on cash crops by increasing the competitiveness of farmers who adopt them. In Zambia, farmers more readily adopted orange-fleshed sweet potato and orange maize because they have two to three times the yields of traditional varieties. In Senegal, adoption rates for moringa and cashews are increasing because of their high market value and demand. Fruit trees produce fruits after three to six years depending on the variety. However, farmers are motivated to grow them because they are more resistant to drought and provide more sustainable income. As a result, increasing numbers of farmers in Zambia and Senegal are planting them along with other crops, such as beans and vegetables, to generate income during the waiting period. A third factor that promoted the adoption of new varieties was communities’ increased knowledge of their nutritional value through Peace Corps training. In Zambia, the prevalence rate of vitamin A deficiency among children under the age of five is 54 percent (FAO, 2009). The introduction of orange￾fleshed sweet potato and orange maize in the ZOI, as well as the cooking demonstrations and tastings 30 facilitated by a professional nutritionist in communities, have increased the production and consumption of these foods. A fourth factor that positively affected the adoption of new varieties was the availability of necessary inputs, such as seeds, cuttings, water, and manure in or close to farmer communities. Effective partnerships with Harvest Plus in Zambia, which supplied hybrid seeds, and Symbiose in Senegal, which reproduced seeds for crops such as rice, corn, sorghum, and beans, allowed Peace Corps to introduce new varieties through the free distribution of seeds, targeting women farmers. New Income-Generating Activities According to 45 percent of beneficiaries (26 out of 58, including 15 women), the introduction of new income-generating activities based on some type of market research was a strong positive factor in increasing incomes and, thus, the resilience of beneficiaries’ households. In Zambia, one of the most successful examples was a Women’s Sewing Group. A PCV helped organize the group and facilitated training in sewing to make items such as tablemats, napkins, baskets, bags, and aprons. Their products are sold in shops, hotels, and embassies, and are even exported to the U.S. One of the members emotionally expressed gratitude for now being able to support her 13 children, which she could barely feed before the project. In the same community, a woman suggested to her husband to diversify their income sources by getting involved in animal husbandry, an uncommon activity in their community. She started with 4 goats and now has 24. In Tambacounda, Senegal, a chicken feed business is filling a major gap in the poultry value chain by supplying high quality chicken feed developed through 12 rounds of trials in partnership with the Senegalese institute for agricultural research (Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles or ISRA). Previously, the only option was to purchase feed from a commercial company, with a higher cost due to transportation from Dakar, 280 miles away. A PCV helped them write a grant request to obtain funds from Peace Corps to purchase the grinder, mixer, and the imprinted bags that enabled them to launch their business. Another PCV worked with six beneficiaries to develop business plans. Four of them received grants and the other two received partial loans to fund their business ideas, which included a bakery, a money lending business, a nail making shop, a livestock rearing business, and a tele center. Additional new income-generating activities that enabled community members to add or diversify income sources included poultry, fruit trees, and vegetable gardens. Community Participation and Ownership Community participation and ownership increased the likelihood that PAPA activities would achieve expected results. One hundred and fourteen of the 126 (90 percent) people the ET met with indicated that community participation and ownership were essential in achieving objectives in a way that was both culturally appropriate and sustainable. During data analysis, terms such as community involvement or initiative were considered as synonyms for participation and ownership. Strategies used by PCVs to promote community participation and ownership included:   Requiring community members to contribute financially to project start up. Examples in Senegal and Zambia include poultry cooperatives building chicken coops, and community members raising funds to build a well in their communities. A PCV provided an example of what happens when there is no community ownership. A cooperative’s project with orange trees and strawberries failed because its members did not take ownership of it, justifying their lack of interest by the fact that it was on communal land. The PCV explained their behavior as follows: “No one changes the oil in a rental car!” Identifying, training, and coaching community “champions” to increase awareness of specific issues and change behaviors. Compared to externally driven ones, this approach ensures that interventions are relevant, culturally appropriate and sustainable. In Senegal, the Master Farmer is by definition such a champion as he trains other farmers to adopt new varieties and use 31 improved agricultural practices. In Zambia, a counterpart described his community members as “happy tree killers” who used to cut down trees for firewood. Peace Corps trained him and other motivated community members in natural resource management, focusing on bush fire prevention. They shared what they learned with community leaders who set rules against the cutting down of trees and encouraged the community to plant new trees. As a result, moringa and gliricidia trees were planted. Good Entrepreneurship Skills The lack of business management skills was a major constraint in the success of business activities in targeted communities. Out of the 58 beneficiaries, only 17 (29 percent) received training in business skills, mainly informally through a PCV. Only half of those trained have applied the skills learned effectively. Although business management skills were not widely taught by Peace Corps, in a few cases, training in such skills allowed for business success. In Zambia, a PCV counterpart said he did not invest in managing his plantation so his yields depended exclusively on weather conditions. Peace Corps helped him increase the quality and quantity of bananas he produced by training him in improved agricultural practices such as conservation farming. He also learned how to manage his plantation like a business. His productivity increased to the point that Peace Corps funded the production of a teaching video on banana production featuring his plantation as a model farm. The video was shown in other Peace Corps posts, including Senegal. In Senegal, two poultry cooperatives increased their revenues by applying the marketing strategies they learned through Peace Corps training. For example, they timed harvests to coincide with major religious holidays when they could sell chickens for higher prices. Other examples of success include:    Members of a poultry cooperative in Senegal were taught basic accounting by a PCV and are now able to develop business plans, keep financial records and save money for future activities. Members of a women’s sewing group in Zambia learned from their PCV about production planning, and money management to be able to cover transportation costs, inputs, and other key business expenses while generating increasing revenues. A community member participated in a Peace Corps/Zambia agribusiness workshop and shared what he learned with members of his cooperative. As a result, although they were previously unable to manage their cooperative as a business, they now do basic accounting and business planning, which has improved their cooperative’s profits. Increased Access to Capital and Markets Although Peace Corps is quite effective at building the capacity of community members to start or expand income-generating activities, the most successful were those with the capital to reach accessible markets and to sustain and develop their business. Access to Capital Half of the PCVs (9 of 18) worked with motivated community members to write grant proposals that enabled them to obtain funding from Peace Corps for various activities:  - -  - - In Zambia: A cooperative built a chicken coop for 20 layer chickens. A vegetable-growing Women’s Group bought wells, tools, and supplies. In Senegal: A local NGO is implementing a mangrove reforestation project with high community involvement, mainly women. A chicken feed business obtained a grinder and processor. 32 Access to Markets A determining factor in the performance of successful businesses was the support they received from PCVs to find markets for their products. Such examples include:   In Zambia: 1) the Women’s Sewing Group, which sells its products in Lusaka shops, hotels, embassies, and even exports to the U.S.; 2) farmers in a community who had no market before Peace Corps support and now sell their red onions to buyers from Lusaka who pick them up by the truckload. In Senegal, a poultry and chicken feed business bought a grinder and mixer with funds from Peace Corps, which enabled it to locally produce chicken feed, making it more competitive than the large commercial producer in the capital which prices its product 20 percent higher. As a result, it sells all its chicken feed and is not able to meet the increasing demand. In addition, its feed has reduced costs for its poultry business. It was the only one selling chickens in surrounding communities during the dry season, when the ET visited. Partnerships Effective partnerships improved Peace Corps’ ability to achieve results. Such partnerships, a few of which are described below, were well defined, with clear roles, responsibilities, and expected results. In Zambia ZARI worked with Peace Corps to deliver training and organize events to increase the rates at which farmers adopt orange-fleshed sweet potato and orange maize by farmers. These events also encouraged consumption of these nutrient-dense foods in targeted communities. Harvest Plus partnered with Peace Corps to deliver goods and services to farmers and supplied seeds and training to farmers. The International Potato Center (CIP) multiplied orange-fleshed sweet potato plantlets and gave cuttings to farmers who multiplied and distributed them to others. Having the FSC based in the USAID ZOI in Zambia helped Peace Corps establish a strong network of partners with key stakeholders such as local government, research institutions, CBOs, and other implementing partners (IPs). PCVs working in non￾ZOI provinces did not have access to such a strong network. In Senegal, USAID’s Yaajeende, the Agriculture and Nutrition Development Program for Food Security, helped Peace Corps recruit a Master Farmer in the Fouta region. USAID’s Education and Research in Agriculture (ERA) collaborated with Peace Corps in Toubacouta on positive youth development activities and to establish youth clubs. ISRA worked with Peace Corps to develop improved crop varieties and to explore improved practices such as intensive rice production adopted from Madagascar. The United States Forest Service provided information to guide site selection for PCVs. A chicken feed company in Tambacounda, which a PCV helped launch, trained six people for a 15-month government￾accredited certificate program on chicken raising and gardening. Innovation Organizational Level The following innovations by Peace Corps at an organizational level positively affected its contributions to Feed the Future program areas. Master Farmer Model The Master Farmer Program in Senegal has expanded the agricultural extension outreach of Peace Corps and USAID/Senegal by building the capacities of Master Farmers to serve as agricultural extension educators. These farmers work with farmers in their own communities and are therefore a resource for Peace Corps to adapt its work to the specific cultural and socio-economic context. They use their farms as demonstration and educational sites where they provide extension services and serve as local sources of improved seeds and other agricultural inputs and technologies, as well as technical support in the application of improved agricultural practices. 33 Work Zone Model Figure 10: Extension Manuals in the Community Library In 2011, Peace Corps/Senegal staff and PCVs used a participatory process to divide the country into geographically distinct Work Zones, each with 6-18 volunteers across all sectors, namely agriculture, community economic development, agroforestry and health. Volunteers in each work zone nominate one or two Work Zone Coordinators. The Work Zone model promotes collaboration between volunteers in the same work zone to better address community needs by pooling knowledge and resources in various sectors. In Zambia, the ZOI is in a single geographic area, namely the Eastern Province. Therefore, the FSC who is based in the ZOI, plays a role similar to that of Work Zone Coordinators in Senegal, facilitating collaboration between volunteers by connecting them to one another when such opportunities arise. Community Level At the community level, Peace Corps’ technical support allowed for communities to innovate and find solutions to constraints in achieving food security objectives. Examples include: In Zambia: 1) a poultry cooperative reduced expenses by producing its own chicken feed supplement with maize bran, sunflowers, and moringa; 2) the Women’s Sewing Group used mobile phones to communicate with clients through WhatsApp and to complete mobile banking transactions; 3) the introduction of a bicycle powered maize sheller reduced a two-week job to two hours and practically eliminated school absences previously due to children’s involvement in shelling; and 4) a PCV counterpart helped establish a Community Library, with various resources, including technical extension manuals, making them more accessible to farmers. The library also has children books, including health￾related ones, and some youth have developed a hobby of reading. CONCLUSIONS Factors that positively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives include: 1. Effective technical assistance by Peace Corps staff: a) at headquarters, and specifically the Office of Overseas Programming and Training Support (OPATS); b) in posts, especially with the proximity of the FSC based in the ZOI in Zambia and Work Zone Coordinators in Senegal; and c) from third year PCVs who provide support to new PCVs. 2. Successful adoption of new varieties and agricultural practices, which was encouraged as a result of:     The evidence of increased yields and higher quality crops in the fields of farmers who adopted them. The perceived high revenue potential of new varieties as a result of one or more of the following: increased yields, high demand, higher prices, and resistance to disease and pests. The nutritional value of new crop varieties. The availability of necessary inputs, such as seeds, cuttings, water, and manure in or close to farmer communities. 3. New income-generating activities, which increased the competitiveness of those who engaged in them. 34 4. Community participation and ownership, which encouraged community members to take initiative and work together toward achieving goals. 5. Increased access to capital and markets to develop marketable products and sell them for a good price. 6. Good entrepreneurship skills to develop businesses that are competitive and manage and develop them to be successful. 7. Effective partnerships to increase Peace Corps’ ability to contribute to Feed the Future objectives. 8. Innovation to improve the capacity of Peace Corps and targeted communities to contribute to Feed the Future objectives. RECOMMENDATIONS The factors above highlight Peace Corps’ comparative advantage and its strengths. In addition, although good entrepreneurship skills constituted a major constraint in developing and sustaining income￾generating activities, the few beneficiaries trained in this area were successful. Therefore, in future agreements, USAID and Peace Corps should:  Use the above factors to inform the development of a theory of change that is better aligned with Peace Corps’ strengths. Such a theory of change should translate the Feed the Future theory of change at individual, group, and community levels, specifying the types of capacity￾building activities that Peace Corps should complete at those levels to facilitate the implementation of activities that will contribute to the achievement of Feed the Future higher￾level results. B. Negative Factors FINDINGS Factors that negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives include: Lack of Buy-In From Peace Corps Leadership According to staff at Peace Corps headquarters, there was a lack of buy-in from Peace Corps leadership, which reduced organizational-level recognition and support of PAPA. The staffing structure for PAPA was suggested as the main cause for this situation. More specifically, PAPA-funded staff worked under the Office of OPATS. As a result, PAPA was eclipsed by OPATS and perceived as a program-level initiative, rather than a visible and recognizable entity. Influence of Feed the Future Indicators on Implementation As stated earlier, Feed the Future indicators emphasize quantitative variables and do not capture the activities at the individual, group, and community levels that Peace Corps views as critical to the achievement of Feed the Future objectives. Such activities include building strong relationships and trust with beneficiaries in targeted communities and facilitating community participation and ownership to ensure sustainability. However, all PCVs indicated that the focus on numbers in Feed the Future indicators places pressure on them to implement activities that can be easily and quickly measured by numbers at the expense of those viewed as essential by Peace Corps, and which emerged as such in a 2016 synthesis of evaluation reports related to the Feed the Future Learning Agenda (USAID, 2016).6 More specifically, the report indicates that: “[I]n development, people and relationships matter most. The synthesis found that one of the key drivers of success for Feed the Future was the strength of social capital. When development programs 6 USAID (2016). Synthesis of Evaluations Related to the Feed the Future Learning Agenda. 35 leveraged strong community relationships and trusted and transparent community-based organizations, they were better able to achieve their objectives such as building resilience, expanding markets, closing gender gaps, and lifting vulnerable people out of poverty. Programs also saw better results when they sought to empower people to take ownership of their own advancement. Promoting agency and decision-making power among program participants can change how people see themselves and their opportunities, enabling more lasting change.” Competition Between Increasing Incomes and Improving Nutritional Status New crop varieties such as orange-fleshed sweet potatoes, orange maize, and moringa, as well as fruits and vegetables, which were introduced to improve the nutritional status of communities have high revenue potential. As a result, there is a risk that farmers will prefer to sell all their products leaving none or insufficient amounts for household consumption. For example, in Senegal, produce grown in school gardens was not fed to school children to improve their nutritional status, instead, it was sold to buy school supplies and while children consumed other less nutritious foods, including what was described as “strange imported canned food from Japan.” Poor Business Management Skills General Business Management Skills As mentioned earlier, a few beneficiaries built successful businesses as a result of entrepreneurship skills acquired through Peace Corps training. However, most income-generating activities in communities do not grow to their potential due to the lack of business management skills. Peace Corps provided training in agricultural production and various income-generating activities, but business management was not integrated. For example, trainings were provided for farmers in Senegal on growing crops, knowing different varieties, choosing the best seeds, proper harvesting, and storage. However, training did not include business-related skills, such as business planning, accounting, and marketing. Out of the 43 beneficiaries interviewed, only 12 (28 percent) said they had received some business training. For the others, the lack of business skills prevented them from engaging in business planning and accounting of their farming activities. As a result, beneficiaries in this latter group did not know what their net incomes were or if they were incurring losses because they did not keep records, and instead they tended to copy and engage in business activities they saw others around them doing. They also resisted diversifying into new activities, which they perceived as risky. This behavior reduced their opportunity to have a competitive edge. Finally, since they did not have a business plan, they did not invest in developing their businesses, which often led to delays and even business failure. The story of a farmer-owned company in Senegal is an illustration of this lack of planning. The company produced 200 bags of chicken feed using equipment from a grant obtained through Peace Corps. The profits from sales were sufficient to buy raw materials for second batch. However, unlike the successful chicken feed business mentioned earlier, profits were not reinvested in the business, which was stalled when the ET visited them. Marketing Skills Peace Corps was quite successful at training 46 beneficiaries to start or scale-up income-generating activities, focusing on production. However, except for the successful cases mentioned earlier, weak or absent marketing strategies limited the growth of income-generating activities. In Zambia, four partners from ZARI stated that the farmers they trained in the production of orange-fleshed sweet potato and orange maize were not able to maintain a consistent supply and missed the opportunity to develop strong market linkages. In addition, markets were difficult to access because of bad roads and high transportation costs. For example, in Senegal, a youth entrepreneurship trainee who started a livestock business shared the challenges he faced in finding and accessing markets for his livestock. An additional challenge in developing a successful marketing plan was the lack of alignment between market demand and the capacity of beneficiaries’ businesses to meet it. For example, demand and revenue potential are higher for processed goods like juices, nut butters, jams, and chips. Although some 36 beneficiaries had received training in how to process such goods, they could not afford to engage in such activities. For example, in Senegal, farmers sell only raw cashews because of the lack of processing plants. Providing resources for beneficiaries to process their products would increase their potential to sell them and generate more income. Lack of Capital PCVs were effective at writing proposals to obtain grants for beneficiaries. However, grant procedures take at least six months, which is one quarter of PCVs’ assignments. As a result, the funds obtained through grants were limited. In addition, PCVs’ assignments were not long enough to provide the technical support required after funding was received. Overall, the lack of capital prevented beneficiaries from acquiring the goods and services that were essential for the continuity and growth of their income￾generating activities. Although they had received training in gardening, 19 beneficiaries, that included 16 women and 3 men, only engage in vegetable production during the raining season because of the lack of water. They could not afford wells or the wells they had were no longer operational. Two poultry cooperatives in Senegal had to stop their activities because of the high cost of chicken feed. Other limitations included:   Fences: the lack of fences resulted in crops being destroyed by animals and sometimes stolen. In Senegal, a youth club established tree nurseries, but most trees were eaten by livestock or monkeys. A fence was to be funded by ERA more than a year ago. However, internal administrative procedures have caused delays with no indication of when the funding will be available. For 26 percent (15 out of 58, including 9 women) of beneficiaries, the absence of fences greatly limited the growth of their business activities, as their crops were destroyed by animals. Essential inputs: the lack of inputs such as improved seeds and agricultural equipment and supplies decreased the yields of beneficiaries. As shown in Table 3 above, beneficiaries indicated that their yields and incomes had been limited by the lack of water—38 percent (22 out of 58, including 15 women), and by the lack of essential equipment and supplies for—34 percent (20 out of 58, including 15 women). In Senegal, eight women from a Women’s Group said they benefited from training in gardening, but could not grow their gardening business because they could not afford inputs such as improved seeds with higher yields and essential supplies like watering cans, ropes, pulleys, and pesticides. The high cost of chicken feed is a major constraint to the growth of poultry businesses, which were common in targeted communities. A highly successful poultry cooperative in Senegal ended its activities in October 2016 because chicken feed became too expensive. Its members are planning to grow white maize on two acres to generate the revenue needed to restart their poultry business with the addition of feed production, using mainly local resources. Culture The culture in targeted communities is a factor that negatively affected the achievement of results as discussed below. In a few cases, beneficiaries suffered significant losses because of destructive acts by other community members. The worst case is that of the PCV counterpart mentioned earlier who owned a banana plantation featured in a teaching video, which he showed the ET. After watching the video, he took ET members and the PCV he worked with to see his banana plantation. It had been completely burned down by his own brother who was jealous of his success. In a community in Senegal, four of a beneficiary’s goats were killed at night by jealous community members. Beneficiaries also reported that some community members allow their cattle to roam and eat the crops in the fields of others. 37 The presence of IPs who give away resources has created what was referred to as a “handout mentality,” which reduces communities’ motivation to take initiative and work to achieve goals. In addition, it sets expectations that PCVs will also distribute goods to their communities. This situation causes frustrations for PCVs, as well as community members who believe they are withholding resources. Since only women are involved in nutrition-related activities, they were perceived as exclusively women’s concern. Such a perspective minimized buy-in at the community level, in particular from men. External Factors Several external factors negatively affected the achievement of results, as discussed below.     Climate change is resulting in more intense and longer dry seasons, especially in Senegal, which is experiencing longer periods of drought. Zambia was affected by drought in Malawi, a neighboring country. Farmers on the border sold most of their corn in Malawi where they could sell it for three times the price in Zambia. Concerned by the risk of a shortage of maize in Zambia and the threat of food insecurity that could result from a shortage of maize, a major staple, the government banned the export of maize in 2016. However, it is still being smuggled across the border. Low soil quality results in lower yields, especially in parts of Senegal, like Sokone, where the soil has high salt levels. Poor transportation infrastructure limited access to markets, especially for remote communities, which limited their ability to sell their products. The corruption of local government agents was mentioned as a barrier in seeking and receiving services, such as the registration of cooperatives in Zambia. In two communities, cooperatives were asked to pay more than 10 times the official registration fee. This high cost inhibited others from registering their cooperative, thus reducing their access to the benefits they would be entitled to. CONCLUSIONS Factors that negatively affected the achievement of Feed the Future objectives include: 1. The lack of buy-in from Peace Corps leadership because PAPA-related staff and their activities were placed under OPATS, which reduced their visibility. 2. The negative influence of Feed the Future indicators on implementation: PCVs indicated that the focus on numbers in Feed the Future indicators placed pressure on them to implement activities that could be easily and quickly measured by numbers at the expense of those viewed as critical by Peace Corps, namely building relationships and trust, and empowering people to take ownership of their own development. 3. Competition between increasing incomes and improving nutritional status: the high revenue potential of new crop varieties and other nutrient-dense foods introduced to improve the nutritional status of communities are often sold at the expense of household consumption. 4. Poor business management skills limited the growth of beneficiaries’ businesses and even caused some to fail. 5. The lack of capital prevented beneficiaries from acquiring the goods and services that were essential for the continuity and growth of their income-generating activities, which were often started or scaled up after Peace Corps’ training. The goods and services that were most needed 38 were loan products adapted to beneficiaries’ needs, and inputs such as water, fences, agricultural equipment, and supplies. 6. The lack of marketing skills was one of the main reasons for the failure of income-generating activities. Although Peace Corps was quite successful at training beneficiaries to start or scale-up income-generating activities, beneficiaries did not learn how to develop effective marketing strategies for their products. 7. Culture negatively affected results as follows: a) a few successful beneficiaries were victims of the jealousy of community members who burned their fields or killed their cattle; b) the presence of IPs who give away resources has created a “handout mentality,” in some communities, thus decreasing their motivation to work to achieve goals and causing them to expect handouts from PCVs; and c) nutrition-related activities were perceived as women’s concern, thus minimizing buy-in at the community level. 8. External factors that negatively affected the achievement of results included: climate change; low soil quality; poor transportation infrastructure; and the corruption of local government agents. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are proposed to address the above negative factors. 1. Future agreements should place related staff and activities as a separate and more visible entity to better draw the attention and buy-in of Peace Corps leadership. A proposed solution is to structure PAPA like the Office of Global Health and HIV. This office receives President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding and was positioned as an agency-wide initiative, drawing the attention of leadership and its immediate buy-in. 2. USAID and Peace Corps should define indicators that are better aligned with the Peace Corps approach and the work expected from PCVs. More specifically, such indicators should capture activities such as building relationships and the process of empowering communities through capacity building. 3. The introduction of new crop varieties and other nutrient-dense foods to improve the nutritional status of communities should be accompanied by community economic development activities that increase household income and create jobs to decrease the need to sell foods meant to improve household nutrition. Activities with the highest revenue potential go beyond the production stage and include processing and marketing. 4. Integrate business management, including marketing, in all training for beneficiaries. 5. USAID and Peace Corps should identify potential partners, including the private sector, which could provide beneficiaries with access to capital. 6. USAID and Peace Corps should specify in the theory of change activities at the community level that will establish clear links between beneficiaries and markets. Such activities could include market research and training in business planning and marketing. 7. Peace Corps should minimize the risk of negative effects of culture by: a) emphasizing the benefits at the community level resulting from the success of specific individuals or groups; b) exploring opportunities for successful beneficiaries to purchase insurance to protect their assets; c) clarifying the role of PCVs and the rationale for Peace Corps’ emphasis on capacity￾building and ownership, rather than handouts; and d) involving men in nutrition-related activities to increase buy-in at the community level. 8. USAID and Peace Corps should identify partners, including the private sector, which could help address external factors that negatively affected the achievement of results, such as low soil 39 quality and poor transportation infrastructure. To address the corruption of local government agents, Peace Corps should inform beneficiaries of procedures and costs of common business development transactions. 4.1.3 For interventions positively affecting food security and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which PCVs work, how could they be replicated to maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? FINDINGS As discussed earlier, most of Peace Corps’ activities focused on building the capacity of community members to improve agricultural productivity. Such activities included mainly training community members with the high potential to train others and support them in their application of newly acquired knowledge and skills. Interventions that positively affected beneficiaries’ food security or nutrition￾related outcomes and that could be replicated to maximize results include those that increased the relevance and effectiveness of capacity-building activities. Such interventions include the Work Zone Model and the Master Farmer Program. Although Peace Corps focused mainly on agricultural productivity, as discussed below, evaluation findings of exceptionally successful businesses indicate the need to further integrate activities that enable beneficiaries to engage in higher levels of the agricultural value chain, in particular storage, processing and marketing. Capacity-building Activities that increase relevance and effectiveness of capacity-building activities and that could be replicated include the Work Zone Model and the Master Farmer Program. The Work Zone Model is an innovation of Peace Corps Senegal, which groups PCVs in the same geographic zone to facilitate collaboration with one another across sectors (agriculture, agroforestry, health, and community economic development). Therefore, they are able to pool their knowledge and resources to better address the needs of their communities. Each zone is managed by a PCV selected to be the Work Zone Coordinator. In Zambia where the ZOI is a single province, the FSC who is based in the ZOI plays a similar role with the added benefit of a higher level of experience and technical expertise. The Master Farmer Program in Senegal builds the capacities of Master Farmers to serve as agricultural extension educators. They use their farms as demonstration and educational sites where they provide extension services and serve as local sources of improved seeds and other agricultural inputs, technologies, as well as technical support in the application of improved agricultural practices. The Master Farmer Program has already been replicated in several countries such as the Gambia and Benin and could be replicated elsewhere. Agricultural Value Chain Activities in the agricultural value chain that enabled beneficiaries to grow their businesses and could be replicated include effective marketing strategies and post-production activities. Effective marketing strategies were essential in increasing the incomes of successful beneficiaries. These marketing strategies included studying the market and assessing how to best meet its demands and expanding markets for their products. Therefore, replicating effective marketing strategies should increase the likelihood that beneficiaries’ businesses help them improve their food security and nutrition outcomes. Post-production activities increased the likelihood of improving the food security and/or nutrition of targeted beneficiaries. More specifically, interventions that included the storage of beneficiaries’ products with a fence or a structure such as a chicken coop or shed reduced post-harvest losses. In addition, processing added value to beneficiaries’ products, enabling them to demand higher prices for goods such as chicken feed and moringa flour. 40 CONCLUSIONS Interventions that could be replicated to improve the effectiveness of Peace Corps’ capacity-building processes and maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries include: 1) the Work Zone Model in Senegal, which corresponds with the geographic placement of the FSC in the ZOI in Zambia; and 2) the Master Farmer Program. At the level of the agricultural value chain, interventions worth replicating include: 1) effective marketing strategies; and 2) activities beyond the production stage of the agricultural value chain, in particular storage and processing. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable, positive impacts on beneficiaries, it is recommended that the processes mentioned above be replicated as described below. 1. The Work Zone Model could be replicated in other countries as follows: a. Decide how to best divide the targeted zones of influence into geographic clusters of volunteers that would best promote collaboration. Factors to take into consideration include: a) combination of knowledge and skills of PCVs that would allow for optimal cross-sectoral collaboration; b) extent of shared priorities across communities; c) distance; and d) cultural homogeneity, in particular language. b. Have PCVs in each work zone select a Work Zone Coordinator with at minimum the following qualifications: a) The ability to communicate effectively and serve as a liaison between PCVs and Peace Corps staff; b) the capacity to connect PCVs with similar interests and activities; and c) high performing PCV with the motivation to support other PCVs in their work, including linking them to relevant external partners. c. Create opportunities for work zones to share information and learn from one another through: a) a digital platform such as WhatsApp or Facebook; b) a newsletter; and c) a session dedicated to a Work Zone meeting during events gathering all PCVs. 2. The Master Farmer Program could be replicated as follows: a. Define community-endorsed criteria for selecting Master Farmers. b. Provide financial and human resources to support Master Farmers in developing their farms to serve as effective demonstration sites. c. Adapt the program to the socioeconomic and cultural contexts. In particular, depending on women’s land rights, the criteria to recruit farmers might need to be adjusted to allow for the inclusion of more women Master Farmers. d. A community-based participatory approach to monitor the Master Farmer Program and make adjustments as needed. 3. Effective marketing strategies could be replicated through the following steps: a. Develop business management and marketing skills in order to plan business activities that are aligned with market demand. b. Build the capacity of beneficiaries to: i. Link all income-generating activities to specific market opportunities from the initial stage of business planning. ii. Define marketing strategies to reach specific customer groups. 4. In order to replicate post-production activities that positively affect food security and or nutrition, Peace Corps and USAID should integrate post-production activities in future agreements, especially storage and processing to minimize loss and optimize sales and revenues. More specifically, the following is recommended: a. Integrate storage such as fenced areas or sheds in planning and budgeting for agricultural production activities. 41 b. Implement activities beyond agricultural production to include processing of beneficiary products to improve their marketability, reduce loss to spoilage, and increase incomes and employment. 4.1.4 To what extent has this agreement contributed to Peace Corps cross-cutting themes of gender, technology, climate, youth, HIV/AIDS, disability, and volunteerism? FINDINGS PAPA has contributed to several of Peace Corps’ cross-cutting themes, namely gender, youth, HIV/AIDS, climate, and disability. Technology and volunteerism did not emerge as cross-cutting themes. Gender Based on ET observations and interview data, one of the most notable contributions of the agreement was the increase of formal and informal leadership roles of women in their communities. These included the woman Master Farmer discussed earlier who now has more credibility with religious and local authorities, and is an advisor for the Mayor; women with successful businesses such as the Women’s Sewing Group in Zambia; and the goat owner featured on the cover of this report, who started with raising four goats and now has 24. The husband acknowledged that his wife is “helping him a lot now.” According to the husband, women in their community have emerged as better entrepreneurs and leaders and gave an example of a successful women’s cooperative of poultry farmers led by a woman and composed of 17 women and 3 men. Peace Corps’ training materials on various topics include gender and women as a stand-alone or cross￾cutting issue. In the past, women’s activities focused on education. However, Peace Corps has been thinking more strategically about how to integrate gender in various sectors, including agriculture, agroforestry, community economic development, and health. Last year, Peace Corps Senegal held its first Gender/Let Girls Learn Workshop, with the main goal of becoming a more gender-empowering organization. Still, more efforts are needed to promote girls’ education in communities because families place more value on boys’ education. Women are usually in charge of the production of crops like sweet potatoes, groundnuts, and beans. In Senegal, about 76 percent of gardening is done by women, with men focusing on cash crops such as millet, sorghum and maize. Of the 41 Master Farmers in Senegal, only three are women because one of the requirements is to own one hectare. However, Peace Corps Senegal plans to increase the participation of women to 50 percent for the next cohort of 60 by decreasing this requirement to ½ hectare, with the willingness to consider even less land. They also plan to “lobby” key stakeholders to grant women land for agricultural production. In November 2016, Feed the Future funds enabled several Peace Corps staff from field offices and headquarters to attend the Integrating Gender and Nutrition within Agricultural Extension Services (INGENAES) workshop in Zambia. Several Peace Corps offices, including Zambia and Togo, received the Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (A-WEAI) Manual7 and are modifying it to serve as a guide for volunteers to assess gender-based power dynamics when they begin working with their communities. Youth Youth constitute the largest group with which PCVs work. In Senegal, Chambers of Commerce partner work with Peace Corps for youth entrepreneurship development, where, in one region, the Chamber of 7 The A-WEIA is a survey-based index designed to measure the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agricultural sector. It was initially developed in 2012 as a tool to reflect changes in women’s empowerment that may result from the US government’s Feed the Future Initiative, which commissioned its development. 42 Commerce and a local organization collaborated with the PCV to train 20 participants that included students, unemployed youth, young farmers, and entrepreneurs. The Chamber of Commerce provided the meeting space and connected Peace Corps with other partners, especially government agencies. The training drew the attention of government officials such as the Mayor and the Governor. Graduates received a certificate and Peace Corps provided meals during training. Graduates of the first session applied for funding and five, including two young women, received funds to start businesses. A grant from Let Girls Learn helped set up an internship program that placed high school students in eight companies to develop their career skills such as public speaking, leadership, gender equality, and resume writing. Also in Senegal, Peace Corps works with USAID/ERA to promote positive youth development and link university students to service opportunities in targeted communities. ERA supports PCVs in creating youth clubs and strengthening them by helping them define priorities, specific activities, results, timeline, and responsible persons. There are now more than 40 youth clubs and the demand to establish them is increasing. Members are typically 50 percent girls/50 percent boys and club members learn about gardening, health (prevention of malaria, HIV/AIDS, cholera, etc.), and nutrition. A youth club in one region was so successful that it received ½ hectare from the mayor. Peace Corps provided a well, the materials, and labor to build a storage unit for harvested crops, seeds, and equipment. The youth club has all it needs to grow its gardening business and is waiting for the fence ERA promised. ERA measured the space and helped with preparing the budget. Without the fence, animals eat the crops so the club has held off crop production. Girls Leading Our World (GLOW) camps encouraged self-confidence, challenged campers to think beyond traditional gender roles, and encouraged them to address the unique societal and health issues girls and women face. GROW (Girls and Guys Reimagining Our World) camps, six-day food security and social justice camps are replacing GLOW and focusing on agriculture and food security with the aim to make agriculture more attractive so youth will stay on farms. HIV/AIDS HIV/AIDS is a major issue in Zambia where the prevalence rate is about 14 percent. The Grassroots Soccer Program in Zambia uses a soccer game that usually draws about 600 people to increase awareness for HIV/AIDS prevention and encourage testing, with advice regarding treatment options for those who test positive. For community-based awareness, a community member attended an HIV/AIDS workshop in Lusaka sponsored by Peace Corps. After the training, the community member was tasked to teach others in the village what was learned, especially teenagers; promote HIV/AIDS prevention methods and distribute condoms; and encourage testing and provide access to treatment for those who test positive. Since the prevalence rate is less than 1 percent in Senegal, there was little focus on HIV/AIDS. Climate Peace Corps trained 20 beneficiaries in conservation farming and other environment-friendly practices to increase their resilience to climate change. A few specified the practices they learned were double￾digging and applying manure to produce better quality crops and obtain higher yields; conservation farming practices to build resilience to climate change and pests; and composting, which produces better quality crops with higher yields. Six members of a cooperative growing fruit trees used the skills they acquired in bush fire management to protect the trees in their community and plant new ones, especially gliricidia and moringa. In Senegal, which has experienced successive droughts, an NGO strengthened by Peace Corps, organizes and coordinates reforestation involving community members in 17 villages, with about 50 percent men/women. It also supports them in growing cashews, eucalyptus, and fruit trees. Before partnering with Peace Corps, the NGO did not have good results and had only been able to work with 43 four villages because it did not have a systematic process. With training from Peace Corps, it now develops an action plan each year with specific activities, schedule, and budget. Peace Corps has drawn national attention to its work, which was featured on the national television station, Radio Television Sénégalaise (RTS). CONCLUSIONS The Agreement has contributed to several of Peace Corps’ cross-cutting themes as follows: 1. Gender: a) increase in women’s leadership roles in their communities; b) Peace Corps’ efforts to become a more gender-empowering organization; and c) improving approaches and tools to better integrate gender in Peace Corps’ programs. 2. Youth: a) youth were trained in entrepreneurship and about ¼ received funding to start their businesses; b) youth clubs were established providing youth with opportunities to learn about health (prevention of malaria, HIV/AIDS, cholera, etc.) and nutrition, and to establish and grow school gardens; and c) youth camps such as GROW developed youth leadership skills and knowledge about food security. 3. HIV/AIDS: In Zambia, a high-risk country, HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention were facilitated through the Grassroots Soccer Program and community-based health volunteers. 4. Climate: Peace Corps trained beneficiaries in conservation farming and other environment￾friendly practices. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are proposed, based on the above conclusions. 1. Peace Corps should integrate gender and women beginning with the project design stage both at organizational and community levels, with relevant training for staff and PCVs. 2. Peace Corps should continue to invest in positive youth development and youth entrepreneurship, and explore partnerships to provide greater access to funding for business start-up. 3. Peace Corps should expand the geographic coverage of the Grassroots Soccer Program and the community-based HIV/AIDS volunteer program. 4. Peace Corps should continue to train beneficiaries in conservation farming and other environment-friendly practices to increase their resilience to climate change. 4.1.5 Overall recommendations to improve Peace Corps’ contribution to Feed the Future’s goals, objectives, and intermediate results The above discussion of Peace Corps’ contributions and the factors that affected them positively and negatively suggests that future agreements between USAID and Peace Corps should better align with Peace Corps’ approach and experience. The agreement suggests that Peace Corps is a typical Feed the Future partner, with the capacity to implement activities that contribute effectively to higher level Feed the Future objectives and can be accurately measured using its indicators. 44 However, Peace Corps requires a different type of partnership. Although it is a government agency, its role and approach is closer to that of partners referred to as “civil society organizations” in the 2016 Feed the Future Progress Report entitled Growing Prosperity for a Food-Secure Future. This report states that “with more inclusive participation of civil society organizations—faith-based organizations, farmer cooperatives and associations, local entrepreneurs and nonprofits, women’s groups, youth-led organizations and community-based organizations—both the design and the implementation of Feed the Future activities are informed and led by groups with strong links to their communities, so that interventions are locally owned and driven, and results are more durable (p. 29).” Therefore, it is recommended that future agreements better build on Peace Corps’ comparative advantage, as described above, to optimize its contribution to the Feed the Future initiative. More specifically:  Define Peace Corps’ role as that of a “pre￾implementation” partner, one who builds the “foundation” that will increase the likelihood of the success of Feed the Future interventions. Such a role would enable Peace Corps to use its unique position to provide valuable information such as the context in host countries from national to community levels, priorities, opportunities, threats, and approaches and techniques that are culturally appropriate and effective. Peace Corps is also strategically placed to conduct a thorough stakeholder analysis and develop effective engagement strategies. This type of information would reduce the risk of factors that often lead to the failure of development projects, namely ignoring their context, interventions that are not relevant, and a lack of knowledge of key stakeholders and their roles and interests (Ika, 2012). The Feed the Future 2016 Progress Report recognizes the value of partnering with organizations like Peace Corps because they “help farmers, producers and other stakeholders come together to better represent their interests and actively participate in (…) countries’ development. Not only does such an approach yield better, more sustainable results, it also helps weave together the fabric of mutual accountability between government, the private sector and civil society (p. 30).” The infographic in Figure 8 highlights the six common traits of effective programs—1) community, 2) empowerment, 3) time, 4) access, 5) assets, and 6) training—all of which Peace Corps is strategically positioned and equipped to contribute to. Several of these traits, such as community and empowerment, are difficult to quantify and would require qualitative indicators, which PAPA did not include. Figure 11: Common Traits of Effective Programs 45 4.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 2: PLANNING AND COORDINATION 4.2.1 What has worked well in terms of the program planning and coordination mechanisms? What needs to be improved? What lessons have been learned? FINDINGS A. What Worked Well Interagency Cooperation In both Senegal and Zambia, the partnership between Peace Corps and USAID was facilitated by the presence of former PCVs in the leadership of the USAID Economic Growth team. These former PCVs understood the particular structure and culture of Peace Corps which, as discussed earlier, is different from that of other USAID IPs. USAID and Peace Corps held regular meetings to update one another, especially on progress toward achieving outcomes and necessary adjustments. In Senegal, USAID organizes IP meetings two or three times a year. Partners present activities and results, and look for synergies and opportunities for collaboration. According to KIIs, these meetings created opportunities for Peace Corps to develop partnerships with the following: 1) USAID/Yaajeende, the Agriculture and Nutrition Development Program for Food Security in Senegal, which shared its database of successful farmers to help Peace Corps select Master Farmers; and 2) USAID/ERA for positive youth development, including hosting a third year PCV. ERA also facilitated internships for university students to do community service with youth clubs. Unlike Zambia, Senegal’s ZOI covers several regions. To facilitate coordination, USAID/Senegal has regional coordinators in Kolda, Kedougou, Tambacounda, and Saint Louis who participate in yearly meetings organized by PCVs to gather IPs and government officials involved in agriculture, agroforestry, community economic development, and health. Technical Assistance Several technical specialists were recruited to strengthen Peace Corps’ work in food security within the framework of this agreement, namely three technical specialists at headquarters in M&E, nutrition, and agriculture, respectively. This core team communicated regularly with Peace Corps field offices to request their input regarding their needs and any issues they might be facing. The Peace Corps Directors of Programming and Training in Zambia and Senegal indicated that this demand-driven approach in guiding the work of the team at headquarters made Peace Corps’ work in food security more responsive and relevant. Access to M&E expertise enabled Peace Corps to develop results￾oriented training plans, with clear theories of change that were distributed to all field offices. This process resulted in greater standardization of training across the agency, making it easier to share knowledge. The agreement also provided funds for field offices to hire a dedicated FSC which increased program effectiveness and efficiency, especially in Zambia where the FSC was based in the ZOI. As stated earlier, the technical assistance provided by the FSC in the ZOI improved the implementation of activities. As a result, the ZOI achieved greater results compared to the six non-ZOI provinces (Peace Corps Zambia PAPA Annual Progress Report, 2016). Funds also allowed for the recruitment of third year volunteers who serve as resource persons for PCVs. Five third year PCVs described how they support their peers, mainly by sharing their experience and expertise through workshops and a PCV WhatsApp group. In Senegal, a third year PCV has been assigned to work specifically with Peace Corps’ Cashew Initiative. She coordinates training and support to the cashew sector and facilitates the development of partnerships. She is currently the only PCV to focus on a specific sector. However, Peace Corps Senegal is considering dedicating a third year PCV to malaria. 46 B. What Needs to Be Improved Several factors negatively affected the planning and coordination of Peace Corps activities.     The mechanism of centrally funded buy-ins used in this agreement was perceived as burdensome by USAID Missions. Such agreements bring in two sets of management (BFS and Missions), which was considered too complex because of the challenging administrative and reporting procedures. In addition, having BFS serve as a liaison between USAID Missions and Peace Corps field offices reduced Missions’ incentives to make efforts to build relationships with Peace Corps in their host countries. For Peace Corps’ planning, USAID expectations regarding spending of funds were challenging because their schedule did not align with Peace Corps,’ which is based on the volunteer cycle. In addition, the uncertainty of future Feed the Future funding created anxiety and reduced the level of initiative and engagement within both USAID and Peace Corps, who were in what they described as a “wait-and-see mode.” Peace Corps determines the geographic focus of its activities based on the priorities of host countries. However, USAID’s ZOI created frustrations because Peace Corps’ staff and volunteers indicated that they are often not aligned with local priority needs. For example, in Senegal, Linguere has suffered from greater food insecurity than Kedougou, but the latter was included in the ZOI. In Zambia, the USAID Economic Growth Director and Feed the Future Coordinator, who were both former PCVs, left their posts in mid-2016. Since the departure of these Peace Corps “champions,” there have been no regular quarterly USAID-Peace Corps meetings and communications between them has decreased. This situation has resulted in less effective coordination. In Senegal, USAID used to do regular field visits, about every six months. However, as confirmed by both Peace Corps and USAID staff members, there have been none for the past two years. Several partners were involved in food security-related interventions. However, poor coordination in both Zambia and Senegal has resulted in duplication of field-level efforts across partners. For example, in Zambia, several programs – including Mawa, HARVEST Plus, PROFIT, and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) – used the same lead farmers. CONCLUSIONS The following aspects of planning and coordination mechanisms worked well: 1. Leadership in USAID’s Economic Growth team who understood Peace Corps particular structure and culture. 2. Regular USAID-PC meetings, IP meetings, and other similar mechanisms that facilitate collaboration between USAID and Peace Corps in specific areas. 3. Effective technical assistance from the technical staff at Peace Corps headquarters and in field offices, as well as the ZOI-based FSC in Zambia and third year PCVs. 4. The development of standardized food security-related training materials by Peace Corps technical staff, which facilitated knowledge sharing within Peace Corps. Aspects of planning and coordination that need to be improved include: 1. The funding mechanism, which involved two sets of management (BFS and Missions) and was considered burdensome by USAID Missions. 2. The lack of alignment between USAID’s schedule of spending and that of Peace Corps’ which depends on the volunteer cycle. 3. The lack of clear communication regarding the future of Feed the Future funding. 47 4. The difference between Peace Corps’ and USAID’s geographic priorities. 5. Duplication of efforts across partners in the implementation of activities. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are proposed for planning and coordination mechanisms: 1. In future agreements, USAID and Peace Corps should begin by discussing their structure and culture and identifying areas where differences need to be addressed to ensure effective and efficient planning and coordination, in particular in terms of geographic priorities and the schedule of spending. 2. USAID and Peace Corps should continue to hold regular meetings, including those with other partners, adding a mapping of all partner activities to improve coordination and avoid duplication of efforts. 3. For future agreements, USAID should use a funding mechanism that is less burdensome for USAID Missions and does not require the two sets of managements in the current agreement: one for BFS and one for the Mission. 4. USAID and Peace Corps should ensure that the products and processes developed as a result of technical assistance under this agreement are capitalized and not lost. More specifically, they should ensure that mechanisms are used to establish institutional memory by capturing and storing products and processes developed, such as training materials and workshops, and allowing for easy retrieval. 4.2.2 To what extent have the overall program planning and coordination mechanisms supported the implementation of program activities? This sub-question focused on the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of performance monitoring data, and the extent to which they supported the implementation of activities. FINDINGS A. What Worked Well Improved M&E Capacity of PCVs The requirements of PAPA have improved the quality of M&E training within Peace Corps and PCVs now receive M&E training during pre-service training (PST) and in-service training (IST). In 2014, Senegal started the Dream Team with Feed the Future funds. In each region, one PCV for each sector was selected to be trained in M&E and provide M&E support to peers, mainly regarding the use of data collection tools and reporting. The Dream Team has strengthened Peace Corps/Senegal’s M&E systems and shares M&E best practices with other PCVs. Its members usually make themselves available to help PCVs for a few days before their reports are due. The Dream Team worked with a third year PCV to develop a manual with data collection tools for each sector that are updated at the beginning of each year. In Zambia, the FSC plays the role of a one-man “Dream Team.” Zambia was one of two countries in which Peace Corps pilot tested M&E mobile data collection with PCVs. The results indicated that this type of data collection improved the quality and speed of data collection. Therefore, Peace Corps is planning ways to implement it in field offices. The increased capacity of some PCVs in M&E is improving their ability to integrate M&E in project design, thus improving the likelihood that activities implemented will achieve expected results. An illustration is the case of a PCV who plays the role of M&E Coordinator for malaria in Senegal. She conducted a baseline assessment and collected information from local health facilities. Counterparts also collected data from communities. Based on identified needs, she worked with beneficiaries to develop projects and integrated M&E during this design stage by defining indicators to track progress. 48 Use of Monitoring Data During its Annual Reflection Process, Peace Corps reviews the results of its interventions and draws lessons from them to better support PCVs and improve implementation and the achievement of results. This process feeds into Peace Corps’ Integrated Planning and Budget System, which is Peace Corps’ internal process for strategic planning. B. What Needs to Be Improved Reporting of Feed the Future Indicators All PCVs interviewed believe Feed the Future indicators focus exclusively on numbers with limited opportunity to provide qualitative information. Although they are able to add a narrative to complement indicator data, this information is not perceived as valued for Feed the Future purposes. As a result, they stated that there is a temptation to “rush to scale up activities” that can be easily quantified and to inflate numbers. For example, “training” was loosely defined by some to include village-wide workshops. In addition, this situation promotes unhealthy competition towards these types of activities, at the expense of the ones that constitute Peace Corps’ strengths, such as building relationships and trust with community, which can only be measured qualitatively. A health PCV invested a lot of time and effort in designing and implementing COPE, which stands for “client-oriented, provider-efficient” services.8 It is a process that helps health care staff continuously improve the quality and efficiency of services provided at their facility and make services more responsive to clients’ needs. The PCV used COPE to: 1) specify problems; 2) identify causes; 3) find solutions; 4) specify persons responsible for implementing solutions; and 5) specify deadlines. Results were posted in health facilities where staff could see them every day and stay on track to complete assigned activities. Although COPE helped improve health center services, there was no Feed the Future indicator she could use to report it. The perception of PCVs is that activities not captured by Feed the Future indicators are not considered valuable and not taken into account. Data Collection, Reporting, and Use PCVs use the Volunteer Reporting Form (VRF) to report their activities. All of the 18 PCVs interviewed identified several problems with the VRF: a. Nine (50 percent) PCVs believe that its exclusive focus on numbers does not allow it to fully capture some of the critical work they do, such as building relationships. b. Six (33 percent) PCVs find it confusing, especially because the new version does not clearly link activities with indicators. Prior to FY 2016, PCVs filled out the VRF by first listing activities completed and then selecting relevant indicators. As a result, indicator data was more clearly linked to specific activities. During FY 2016, the VRF was changed so PCVs report on indicator data separate from activities, which makes it confusing. Several PCVs admitted that they often just “come up with numbers” because of the complicated reporting system. c. Six (33 percent) PCVs reported that the lack of Internet access often leads to delays in submitting their reports. d. Four (22 percent) PCVs indicated that the VRF is burdensome and takes too long to fill out because it is not user-friendly. e. Four (22 percent) PCVs regret that the VRF promotes unhealthy competition by pressuring them to complete activities that allow for easily reporting quantitative achievements at the expense of the more qualitative processes required to ensure community participation and ownership. 8 Engenderhealth (2017, September 27, 2017). COPE Self-Assessment Process: Client-Oriented, Provider-Efficient. Retrieved from: Engenderhealth at: https://www.engenderhealth.org/pubs/quality/cope.php. 49 f. Four (22 percent) PCVs indicated that it was difficult and even impossible for them to provide the measurements required for some indicators, such as farm size and the level of application of improved agricultural practices. A Peace Corps staff member added that the VRF does not allow PCVs to specify the length of training so sessions that are one hour and those that are one week long are recorded as if they were the same. Indicator data are collected and reported by individual PCVs. Although they receive training in M&E, they are typically not specialists. Peace Corps staff members at its headquarters expressed concern with the quality of the data collected by PCVs because they are self-reporting and do not have sufficient training to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data. As a result, according to a Peace Corps staff member, they are “not comfortable to draw conclusions” from the data collected. PCVs would like the collection and reporting of data to be simplified. They believe that simple questions would better capture the value they bring, such as: 1) What worked well? 2) What went wrong? Why? and 3) What lessons were learned? In addition, they suggested that Peace Corps, itself or working with partners, could use technology such as aerial photos and GPS to provide them with precise data. Finally, none of the projects examined collected baseline data, which made it impossible to determine more accurately how much Peace Corps activities had contributed to the achievements of food security objectives. CONCLUSIONS The collection, analysis, reporting, and use of performance monitoring data supported the implementation of program activities as follows: 1. The increased M&E capacity of some PCVs enabled them to integrate M&E in the design of interventions, thus increasing the likelihood that they will achieve expected results. 2. Performance monitoring data are used by Peace Corps to feed into its Integrated Planning and Budget System, which is its internal process for strategic planning. Areas to be improved to better allow the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of performance monitoring data to support the implementation of program activities include: 1. The exclusive focus of Feed the Future indicators on numbers which might negatively affect PCVs’ implementation of activities by pressuring them toward activities that can be easily quantified at the expense of the ones that constitute Peace Corps’ strengths, such as building relationships and trust with community. 2. The VRF that PCVs use to report their activities is not user-friendly and is even confusing. As a result, the quality of the data reported is reduced, as well as its ability to inform Peace Corps’ implementation and programming processes. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to improve the extent to which the collection, analysis, reporting, and use of performance monitoring data support the implementation of program activities, the ET recommends the following: 1. Peace Corps should include in its M&E training for PCVs the importance of integrating M&E during the design of their projects to increase their effectiveness. 2. Mirroring its Annual Reflection Process, Peace Corps should promote the use of monitoring data to improve implementation at a level closer to PCVs, such as the community or work zone level. 3. USAID and Peace Corps should define qualitative indicators that better capture the contributions of PCVs, such as building relationships and facilitating processes that promote trust and ownership within their communities. 50 4. Peace Corps should assess the VRF by collecting data from PCVs and Peace Corps staff and use the information collected to make it more user-friendly and improve data quality. 5. In order to better support PCVs with M&E tasks, Peace Corps should train counterparts in participatory M&E approaches that would be appropriate in communities with low literacy levels. 4.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 3: PEACE CORPS APPROACH 4.3.1 To what extent is the Peace Corps approach (volunteer-based activities in a number of disparate sites) effective in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? 4.3.2 What are some of the strengths of the Peace Corps approach? How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? Since they generated similar responses, the findings for 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 have been combined. Recommendations address the second question in 4.3.2: “How might these strengths be maximized and replicated?” As discussed below, several aspects of the Peace Corps approach facilitated the achievement of food security and nutrition results: Responsiveness to Community Culture and Needs Peace Corps Volunteers live in the communities where they work, and most are effective at integrating into them by communicating in the local language and learning about the culture, with its values, traditions, and customs. A PCV in Zambia participated in the local “coming of age ceremony” called Chinawali, which she believes “erased an invisible boundary with the community.” Since then, she has been more “immersed” in the community and has been able to achieve better results. After her interview with the ET, the village chief’s wife came up to her and while pointing at her, said: “She is one of us!” PCVs’ intimate knowledge of community culture allows them to design and implement activities that are culturally appropriate. PCVs live at least two years in a community so they understand barriers and facilitators for behavior change. Working closely with counterparts selected by communities as their representative helps PCVs understand and adapt to communities. Counterparts explain community culture to volunteers and also help the community understand the role and culture of PCVs. PCVs’ presence in their communities enables them to know the micro-politics in their community, as well as the power dynamics and the relationships and roles among key stakeholders. They also identify community members who are most receptive to new practices; early adopters and risk-takers; and those potential obstructers who are resistant to change. As a result, they are able to select “champions” who will partner with them and serve as catalysts for their work. PCV counterparts are selected with the expectation that they will play this role and recruit others. PCVs work with their counterparts to build relationships with community members and other partners. They collaborate and use participatory approaches such as Participatory Analysis for Community Action (PACA) to identify pressing community issues and priorities. This approach promotes community ownership and ensures the relevance and sustainability of activities implemented. For example, a PCV used the description of a Senegalese woman’s complete outfit as a metaphor for a balanced diet, which community members could easily understand and remember. PCVs’ close relationships and interaction with community members allows them to be responsive, make adjustments when necessary, and address new priorities as they arise. In response to the resistance of community members to seek care even when they had fever, a PCV in Senegal trained motivated community members as health volunteers to test and treat patients with malaria in their homes. These volunteers visit households twice a week to identify people with fever, test them for malaria, and treat them in the case of positive results. 51 Capacity-Building and Knowledge Transfer Peace Corps’ emphasis on capacity building through activities such as training, demonstrations, and follow-up visits facilitates the transfer of knowledge to communities. As indicated by the Directors of Programming and Training in Zambia and Senegal, the resources available from Peace Corps headquarters, such as technical assistance from highly qualified technical staff and “tested and tried” training materials, enabled PCVs to effectively play the role of extension agents. Typically, PCVs target a small group of motivated community members who will play the role of champions for specific activities. A PCV described his approach as, “start slow, don’t rush in, let farmers demonstrate their dedication.” He gave the example of a fish-farming cooperative in Zambia that took the initiative to change to poultry when climate change caused increasing droughts that threatened fish farming activities. The cooperative supplements commercial feed with local products, thus decreasing its cost by half. Peace Corps’ capacity-building model has a built-in replication process that promotes community ownership and increases the effectiveness and sustainability of activities implemented. The Master Farmer program in Senegal has provided a systematic approach for implementing this model. Senegal has hosted staff from other countries such as Gambia and Benin who have adapted the model. Resource for Effective Design and Implementation of Partners’ Development Interventions Since they reside in beneficiary communities, PCVs constitute a valuable and underutilized network of information and technical assistance that could guide the design and implementation of development interventions to make them more effective. In Senegal, a PCV obtained subsidized bed nets from a British NGO and distributed them to all the members of his community to prevent malaria. The model was tested by other PCVs who were effective partners because they had accurate information regarding needs and the number of people in their communities. The model was successful and adopted nationally. Some partners have approached PCVs to help them in designing and implementing their activities. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) developed its local climate histories with support from PCVs. WWF also plans to work with them as a vehicle to deliver communications related to climate adaptation. In addition, a third year PCV in Zambia is working with the United States Forest Service (USFS) as a community-level resource person in its pilot reforestation program. CONCLUSIONS The aspects of the Peace Corps approach that made it effective in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes include: 1. Its responsiveness to community culture and needs, which enabled PCVs to design and implement activities that were culturally appropriate and relevant for community needs. 2. Its focus on capacity building and knowledge transfer, which promotes community ownership and increases the relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of activities implemented. 3. Its effectiveness as a resource for the effective design and implementation of partners’ development interventions. The examples of its partnership with WWF and USFS illustrate the effectiveness of Peace Corps in the role of “pre-implementation partner” recommended earlier. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to optimize Peace Corps’ role as a Feed the Future partner in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes, it is recommended (as indicated for 4.1.1.) that future agreements build on its above-mentioned strengths by:  Defining Peace Corps’ role as that of a “pre-implementation” partner, one who builds the “foundation” that will increase the likelihood of the success of Feed the Future interventions. Such a role would enable Peace Corps’ to use its unique position to provide valuable information such as the context in host countries from national to community levels, priorities, 52 opportunities, threats, and culturally appropriate and effective approaches and techniques, as well stakeholder analysis and engagement strategies.  Identifying IPs who could work with Peace Corps to build on its work with activities that will contribute to the achievement of Feed the Future objectives by addressing specific gaps. 4.3.3 What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where volunteers work? FINDINGS Several areas were mentioned as needing to be improved for Peace Corps to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where volunteers work. They include: Dependence on Individual Motivation and Qualifications of PCVs The data collected across stakeholders highlighted the large variations in performance between PCVs. At one extreme, some volunteers do minimal work in their communities. In Senegal, a Women’s Group expressed frustrations regarding the prolonged absences of their PCV and the limited support they have received as a result. They complained that unlike the two previous PCVs, the current one has provided hardly any training or resources and is often not available when they need help. Although he expressed appreciation for PCVs’ contributions in their communities, the leader of a Peace Corps government partner organization in Senegal regretted that “the performance of PCVs is individually based – some are good, and some are bad.” At the other extreme, some PCVs are very active in their communities and are constantly working with them to meet their needs. In Senegal, members of one community praised their PCV for her multiple contributions, which included: a poultry project, two water faucets for their school which had none, a school garden, latrines, gardening training, and the maintenance of a storage facility established by the previous PCV. Another PCV works in the gardens of women in her community nearly every day. As a result, she enjoys their trust and is fully integrated into the community. Term Limits for Staff and PCVs At the organizational level, Peace Corps staff members have term limits of five years, thus weakening the organization’s ability to establish an institutional memory and maintain continuity in its achievements. Within the context of the PAPA, the departure of the core technical team might negatively affect the sustainability of the results achieved so far. At the community level, PCVs are assigned to their communities for two years. Three PCVs and two PCV counterparts stated that it was not enough time to develop and implement projects because most projects really “take off” only in the second year. Therefore, it is challenging to consolidate project activities to the point where they can continue after the PCV leaves, unless the next one is interested and able to do so. An example of the lack of continuity after PCVs’ departure is the uncertainty of the future of youth clubs in a community after the PCV who was working with them left. She was the third and last PCV in that community. Insufficient Opportunities for Knowledge Sharing between PCVs PCVs usually share information informally, mainly using WhatsApp, to ask and answer specific questions. There are no systematic processes to allow them to share information in a regular and more comprehensive manner. The ET identified a missed opportunity for PCVs in Zambia to share information that would address the need in one PCV’s community. One of the PCVs interviewed had worked with a cooperative in her community to develop a chicken feed formula using local products to supplement the commercial feed, which decreased cost by 50 percent. One of the following interviewees was a PCV in another community, who mentioned that a poultry cooperative in his 53 community was struggling to stay in business because of the high cost of commercial feed. He was not aware of the first PCV’s formula so the ET encouraged him to contact her. CONCLUSIONS Below are two main issues that need to be addressed for Peace Corps to improve its ability to achieve food security and nutrition outcomes: 1. Dependence on PCVs’ individual motivation and qualifications, which results in wide variations in the results achieved by volunteers. 2. Term limits for staff and PCVs of five and two years respectively, which are considered too short to ensure the continuity and sustainability of results. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Peace Corps: 1. Assign PCVs to sites for which they have the technical skills required to meet community needs or applying the Work Zone Model, assign them to work zones in which they can collaborate with other PCVs to fill their capacity gaps. 2. Decrease the burden of PCVs to possess the technical skills and information necessary for their work by: a) providing them with a practical guide for starting projects at their sites; and b) establishing mechanisms that would allow for more systematic and comprehensive knowledge sharing among PCVs. 3. Inform PCVs of their assigned sites earlier to allow them more time to learn the language and culture before starting their assignment. It would also free the time currently spent on language acquisition during PST to cover technical areas related to the needs in their communities. 4. Specify expectations of PCV performance to reduce variations between volunteers. 5. Provide more comprehensive training of counterparts to better prepare them to ensure continuity of PCVs activities. 54 ANNEXES 55 ANNEX 1.0 EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PEEL TASK ORDER EXPRESSION OF INTEREST – PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A) Identifying Information 1. Project/Activity Title: Peace Corps PAPA 2. Award Number: AID-BFS-T-11-00001 3. Award Dates: 07/11 – 09/17 4. Project/Activity Funding: $13,854,611 5. Implementing Organization(s): Peace Corps 6. Project/Activity COR/AOR: Kristopher Gorham B) Development Context 1. Problem or Opportunity Addressed by the Project/Activity being Evaluated In July of FY 2011, the Peace Corps and USAID/Bureau for Food Security (BFS) signed an Interagency Agreement (IAA) to implement activities in support of the Feed the Future (FTF) initiative. The overarching goal of the agreement is to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty by tackling the root causes and employing proven strategies to achieve large scale and sustainable impact. Funding has been provided through BFS’ central SOW, the Africa Bureau SOW, and seven additional SOWs from participating Missions to enhance the Peace Corps’ food security programming. The global agreement will expire October 31, 2017. Peace Corps Volunteers work to support six program areas: Agriculture, Education, Environment, Health, Youth in Development, and Community Economic Development. For over 50 years, Volunteers have contributed to food security through specific activities in the Agriculture, Health, and Environment sectors with additional cross-cutting efforts and activities. Volunteers serve for 27 months, contributing to a country-level project framework or strategy that the Peace Corps country designs in partnership with Peace Corps technical sector experts in Washington, D.C. To ensure achievement of targets and goals set forth in the country-level project framework, Volunteers are placed in site locations on a six year cycle - with the first Volunteer working for two years to lay the groundwork, the second Volunteer working in the same location to build and augment a project and capacity, and the third Volunteer working to ensure sustainability of the activity. 2. Target Areas and Groups The Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) benefits Peace Corps posts globally through central funding for development and dissemination of new training packages, for improving Peace Corps’ monitoring, evaluation, and reporting capacity, for headquarters-level technical experts and for food security workshops. Additional funding from USAID Missions supports small grants for volunteer projects, post-level technical experts, and trainings. Mission buy-ins include: West Africa Regional, Guatemala, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda, Zambia, and Senegal. The target beneficiaries are smallholder farmers and rural community members where Peace Corps Volunteers are working. Officially, the agreement covers “any FTF focus, aligned, or affiliated country in which Peace Corps works, or any country in which a USAID operating unit supports activities consistent with the objectives of this Agreement.” 57 C) Intended Results of the Project/Activity Being Evaluated The overarching goal of the Agreement, as described in the Program Description, is to sustainably reduce global hunger and poverty by tackling their root causes and employing proven strategies for achieving large scale and sustainable impacts. USAID measures success toward this goal at the highest levels - the prevalence of poverty and stunted children - alongside other key measures of progress that contribute to this goal. In order to achieve notable progress, Peace Corps and USAID have identified two key objectives which address the principal determinants of food insecurity: 1) accelerating inclusive agriculture sector growth and 2) improving nutritional status. These objectives have direct causal linkages to sustainably reducing hunger and poverty. FOOTNOTE: Since the establishment of the Agreement in 2011, Peace Corps’ programming and measurement of inclusive agriculture sector growth and improved nutritional status have evolved from the original outcome-based measures identified to accurately capture Peace Corps’ food security activities around the world.   Accelerate inclusive agriculture sector growth: There is broad consensus that achieving the collective goal of sustainably reducing global poverty and hunger will require accelerating inclusive agriculture sector growth. Peace Corps and USAID agreed to measure progress through adoption of improved agricultural technologies and change in agricultural production, agriculture value added per person (i.e. the income derived from agricultural production), and in the incomes of both men and women in rural areas, including men and women who are very poor. Improve nutritional status (especially of women and children): Evidence shows that alleviating poverty will reduce under-nutrition, but alone will not resolve the problem. Peace Corps and USAID agreed to coordinate and integrate agriculture and nutrition-sensitive investments to maximize impact and measure the success of these efforts toward achieving this objective through change in the prevalence of stunted and wasted children and the prevalence of underweight women. 58 Progress towards meeting goals and objectives are measured against indicators in the Feed the Future Results Framework. Measures of impact at the national level represent the combined efforts of many partners, most importantly the countries themselves. USAID and the Peace Corps facilitate this process through investments that directly support these country plans, draw on USG areas of comparative advantage, such as research and innovation and inclusive private sector-led growth, and have been demonstrated to be key drivers of agricultural led growth and improved nutrition. These program areas are the following: 1. Improved agriculture productivity 2. Improved markets and household access to markets 3. Increased private sector investment in agriculture and nutrition-related activities 4. Increased agriculture value chain on and off-farm jobs 5. Increased resilience of vulnerable communities and households 6. Improved access to diverse and quality foods 7. Improved nutrition related behaviors 8. Improved utilization of maternal and child health and nutrition services Peace Corps focuses on the transfer of skills and knowledge from Volunteers to host country national counterparts - which includes both informal and formal counterparts - so that together they can improve the lives of the community members Volunteers live among. Under this agreement, this includes capacity building and knowledge transfer of improved agricultural and natural resource management practices, nutrition practices, and small business skills, with the expectation that Volunteers, their counterparts, and community members use these new skills and practices to achieve desired outcomes. Training objectives include: improved nutrition behaviors of program participants (community members) and their families, improved agricultural and natural resource management practices, improved business practices as they relate to production, etc., to be sustained beyond the length of the Volunteer’s two years of service. D) Approach and Implementation In 2011, Peace Corps and USAID entered into a global Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) to support Peace Corps’ programming and efforts in food security. The IAA facilitates the transfer of Feed the Future funds to Peace Corps through a reimbursable agreement. There have been seven Mission-based and two Washington-based participating Statements of Work (SOW) over the course of the Agreement. Each SOW was added through modifications to the agreement (except Africa Bureau, which was part of the initial agreement), and is managed at the country level by a designated Peace Corps staff member and USAID Mission Activity Manager, or at the headquarters level by the Peace Corps’ program office (OPATS), and the Peace Corps’ Office of Strategic Partnerships (OSP) and USAID/BFS. The nine SOWs are as follows: USAID Operating Unit Fiscal Year of Modification Africa Bureau (Central funding) 2011 W. Africa Regional 2011 BFS (Central funding) 2011 Ethiopia 2012 Guatemala 2012 Uganda 2012 Tanzania 2013 Zambia 2013 Senegal 2013 Central funding from Africa Bureau and BFS supports the development and distribution of new training packages, strengthening Peace Corps’ monitoring, evaluation, and reporting capacity, headquarters-level technical experts, and global workshops for knowledge dissemination. Country-level funding from USAID Missions goes toward small grants for volunteer projects, post-level technical experts, and trainings. These components are meant to cumulatively enhance Peace Corps Volunteers’ ability to improve the 59 agricultural and nutrition-related outcomes of their target beneficiaries and communicate the collective impact of their interventions. II. EVALUATION RATIONALE A) Evaluation Purpose This Peace Corps performance evaluation is intended to provide empirical evidence to respond to evaluation questions designed to support learning and continuous improvement for Peace Corps and BFS’ work. The evaluation will also assess what is working well and what is not working well in implementation, assess progress toward outcomes, and provide information and recommendations that BFS and Peace Corps can use to improve activity effectiveness and better achieve intended outcomes. This evaluation will identify areas in which the Peace Corps/ BFS partnership under this Agreement is enhancing the contributions of both agencies to the high level goals of Feed the Future, to reduce the prevalence of poverty and stunting; and this evaluation will recommend modifications that may improve the project’s effectiveness. This information may be used to inform any possible future agreements between USAID and Peace Corps relating to the Feed the Future initiative. B) Audience and Intended Uses The Evaluation results will be used by Peace Corps, and all relevant Peace Corps agency stakeholders, USAID/ Bureau for Food Security (BFS) and relevant USAID technical offices. The Evaluation will also be available to members of Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and made public on the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC). The Evaluation will be utilized by Peace Corps and BFS to inform and potentially re-direct programming in the last years of the Agreement. The Evaluation will also facilitate reflection for Peace Corps’ future programming, following the completion of the Agreement, and the Feed the Future initiative at the end of FY2017. Additionally, BFS will use the evaluation to inform any potential follow-on agreement with Peace Corps after FY2017. C) Evaluation Questions The performance evaluation will explore two specific areas: implementation and outcomes, and will be framed around the following evaluation question areas. The ET will develop evidence based findings and recommendations responding to these questions. Outcomes 1. What progress has been made toward achieving the Agreement’s objectives in program areas (Part 1-C above)? What are some things that can be done to improve achievement of these objectives by: a. Peace Corps Volunteers? b. Host country counterparts? c. Peace Corps Management? d. USAID Missions? e. BFS? 2. What types of interventions and innovations carried out by Peace Corps Volunteers and host country counterparts have had the most positive food security and/or nutrition￾related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which Peace Corps Volunteers work? How can these approaches be identified and scaled up to maximize the potential for long term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? 3. In what types of ways has this agreement contributed to FTF outcomes? And to Peace Corps cross cutting themes of gender, technology, climate, youth, HIV/AIDS, disability and volunteerism? 60 Implementation 4. How has this agreement led to a streamlined, coordinated management approach in countries and sites, and what could be improved, in terms of effectively carrying out:  Training for Volunteers in technical skills to improve their effectiveness in the field;  Capacity building of host country counterparts and direct beneficiaries;  Sharing of lessons learned; and  Provision of technical expertise? What improvements could be made by the Peace Corps, by BFS, or by USAID Missions to better support the implementation of these components? 5. What are some of the strengths of the Peace Corps approach (Volunteer-based activities in a number of disparate sites) and how might these strengths be maximized? What are some of the biggest challenges under this approach and how can these challenges be addressed to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes? 6. How effectively has this activity supported Peace Corps Volunteers and Peace Corps management to: accurately collect performance monitoring information; aggregate and analyze this information as a way to improve performance; better serve communities; and better articulate the impact and value of the Peace Corps? What could be done to improve data collection, analysis and use? 7. What are some of the ways in which the analysis and use of data has enabled the Peace Corps to adjust its activities over the past five years? III. TIMEFRAME & TRAVEL A) Timeframe The following timeline is illustrative, and will be finalized by the contractor and ET for approval by USAID: September 2016 – Mid-January 2017. B) Travel Travel for this evaluation will include sites in Guatemala and Zambia. The ET will elaborate the sampling plan and travel plans in the evaluation plan. The contractor is responsible for all logistics related to international and domestic travel, as well as arrangements for interviews, site visits and observations. Logistics: The contractor is responsible for all logistics related to international and domestic travel, as well as arrangements for interviews, site visits and observations. While introductions and support from Peace Corps will be essential for the evaluation, the team needs to be perceived as an independent third party. IV. DELIVERABLES & DESIGN A) Deliverables All deliverables listed in section F.7 of the PEEL-Task Order contract. B) Evaluation Design  o Design Overview The ET will finalize the details of the design in the Evaluation Plan. A mixed methods approach rooted in robust qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis is recommended for this performance evaluation. Due to the geographically dispersed nature of the intervention, a creative approach involving case studies can be used. The 61 evaluation shall generate rigorous findings and relevant actionable results for all stakeholders. o Sampling Parameters: The performance evaluation will cover the entire activity, however, due to budget constraints and the geographic spread of the activities, site visits will be carried out in three (3) locations: Peace Corps/Guatemala and Peace Corps/Zambia, as well as the Peace Corps Headquarters in Washington D.C. V. TEAM COMPOSITION The ET will be composed of two consultants covering the technical areas below. Each member is requested to submit a CV that demonstrates relevant experience in technical, evaluation, and management skills. The two-member team will hold degrees or have demonstrated experience in the fields relevant to this evaluation. One member, serving as ET Lead, will be a senior-level evaluator with a minimum of 10 years’ experience managing and/or evaluating inter-disciplinary international development projects, involving farmers, communities and private sector and public sector partners. The second member will be a mid-level evaluator with a minimum of five years’ experience managing or evaluating inter-disciplinary international development programs. Team members will need to possess some combination of the following sectoral experience in: agriculture, community development, food security, poverty reduction, gender, nutrition, public/private sector collaboration, market development, or capacity development. The candidates will also have: a) a demonstrated capacity to conduct independent program evaluation; b) experience evaluating programs with small-scale agriculture and nutrition components; c) an understanding of USAID’s foreign assistance goals, and its particular objectives related to agricultural development, nutrition, and food security; d) the ability to analyze issues and formulate concrete recommendations orally and in writing; e) familiarity with USAID’s and Peace Corps’ approaches to development and the nature of inter-agency collaboration. Experience working in Central America and/or sub-Saharan Africa is desired. Spanish language skills are a plus. VI. SUGGESTED LOE Tasks Team Lead (LOE days) Team Member (LOE days) Conference Call/Desk Review 5 4 Evaluation Plan 4 3 Travel & Travel Debriefs 16 16 Preliminary Findings 1 1 Draft Report 6 4 Final Report 4 2 TOTAL LOE 36 30 LOE: Level of effort (“per hours”) 62 ANNEX 2.0 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDES Annex 2.1 Key Informant Interview Guide – USAID Missions Introductory Questions 1. What is your role in the USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) in Zambia/Senegal? 2. How long have you been in this role? Evaluation Question 1. Outcomes The next question in this section will be adapted based on the specific project activities in each country. Senegal 3. The project aims to achieve the two key Feed the Future objectives: a) accelerating inclusive agricultural growth; and b) improving nutritional status, through activities in four areas: agriculture, agroforestry, community economic development, and health. 3.a. To what extent has this project contributed to achieving results in: i) agriculture; ii) agroforestry; iii) community economic development; and iv) health? 3.b. To what extent has the project involved women beneficiaries in the achievement of these results? Zambia 3. The project aims to achieve the two key Feed the Future objectives through activities in four areas: agriculture (RAP9), education (RED10), environment (LIFE11) and health (CHIP12). 3.a. To what extent has 9 Rural Aquaculture Promotion (RAP) Project. 10 Rural Education Development (RED) Project. 11 Linking Income Food and Environment (LIFE) Project. 12 Community Health Improvement Project (CHIP). Key Informant Interview Guide – USAID Missions Name of interviewer Name of interviewee Country Position Date of interview Informed consent signed ☐ Yes ☐ No Start time End time 64 this project contributed to achieving results in: i) agriculture; ii) education; iii) environment; and iv) health. 3.b. To what extent has the project involved women in the achievement of these results? 4.a. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of these results? 4.b. How did they affect results? Interviewer will probe mentioning any of the factors below if they are not addressed: a) coordination between key stakeholders (Peace Corps Management, USAID Missions, BFS, various partners, etc.); b) innovation; and c) external factors. 4.c. To what extent did _________ (include only those factors in the following list that WERE NOT mentioned in previous response: coordination between key stakeholders; innovation; and/or external factors) affect the achievement of results? 4.d. How were results affected? 5. This question focuses on interventions positively affecting agriculture and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which Peace Corps Volunteers work: How could these interventions be replicated to maximize the potential for long term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? 6. To what extent has the project contributed to the following cross-cutting issues? a) gender; b) technology; c) climate; d) youth; e) HIV/AIDS; f) disability; g) volunteerism; and h) other? Evaluation Question 2. Planning and Coordination This question focuses on Planning and Coordination Mechanisms, such as a) USAID/Peace Corps collaboration; b) USAID/Peace Corps Communication; c) coordination of Peace Corps with other US Government agencies or donors implementing similar projects; and d) other organizational-level factors affecting project implementation. 7.a. To what extent have these Program Planning and Coordination Mechanisms supported the implementation of the project activities? 7.b. What has worked well in terms of the Program Planning and Coordination Mechanism? 7.c. What needs to be improved? 8.a. How effectively has this project supported the Peace Corps in accurately collecting performance monitoring information? 8.b. How effectively has this project supported the Peace Corps in using monitoring information as a way to improve project? 9. What could be done to improve: a) data collection; b) analysis; and c) use? Evaluation Question 3. Peace Corps Approach 65 The Peace Corps approach focuses on volunteer-based activities in various sites. 10.a. What are the strengths of the Peace Corps approach in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? 10.b. How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? 11. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where Volunteers work? Concluding Questions 12. As we prepare to go to the field, what kinds of issues do you think we should be focusing on? 13. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the implementation of project activities or the results achieved? 66 Annex 2.2 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Staff Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Staff Name of interviewer Name of interviewee Country Position Date of interview Informed consent signed ☐ Yes ☐ No Start time End time Introductory Questions 1. What is your role in the USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) in Zambia/Senegal? 2. How long have you been in this role? Evaluation Question 1. Outcomes The next question in this section will be adapted based on the specific project activities in each country. Senegal 3. The project aims to achieve the two key Feed the Future objectives: a) accelerating inclusive agricultural growth; and b) improving nutritional status, through activities in four areas: agriculture, agroforestry, community economic development, and health. 3.a. To what extent has this project contributed to achieving results in: i) agriculture; ii) agroforestry; iii) community economic development; and iv) health? 3.b. To what extent has the project involved women beneficiaries in the achievement of these results? Zambia 3. The project aims to achieve the two key Feed the Future objectives through activities in four areas: agriculture (RAP13), education (RED14), environment (LIFE15) and health (CHIP16). 3.a. To what extent 13 Rural Aquaculture Promotion (RAP) Project. 14 Rural Education Development (RED) Project. 15 Linking Income Food and Environment (LIFE) Project. 16 Community Health Improvement Project (CHIP). 67 has this project contributed to achieving results in: i) agriculture; ii) education; iii) environment; and iv) health. 3.b. To what extent has the project involved women in the achievement of these results? 4. a. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of these results? 4.b. How did they affect results? Interviewer will probe mentioning any of the factors below if they are not addressed: a) coordination between key stakeholders (Peace Corps Management, USAID Missions, BFS, various partners, etc.); b) innovation; and c) external factors. 4.c. To what extent did __________ (include only those factors in the following list that WERE NOT mentioned in previous response: coordination between key stakeholders; innovation; and/or external factors) affect the achievement of results? 4.d. How were results affected? 5. This question focuses on interventions positively affecting agriculture and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which Peace Corps Volunteers work: How could the interventions be replicated to maximize the potential for long-term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? 6. To what extent has the project contributed to the following cross-cutting issues? a) gender; b) technology; c) climate; d) youth; e) HIV/AIDS; f) disability; g) use and involvement of volunteers; and h) other? Evaluation Question 2. Planning and Coordination This question focuses on Planning and Coordination Mechanisms, such as a) USAID/Peace Corps collaboration; b) USAID/Peace Corps Communication; c) coordination of Peace Corps with other US Government agencies or donors implementing similar projects; and d) other organizational-level factors affecting project implementation. 7.a. To what extent have Program Planning and Coordination Mechanisms supported the implementation of the project activities? 7.b. What has worked well in terms of the Program Planning and Coordination Mechanism? 7.c. What needs to be improved? 8.a. How effectively has this project supported the Peace Corps in accurately collecting performance monitoring information? 8.b. How effectively has this project supported the Peace Corps in using monitoring information as a way to improve project? 9. To what extent did the Peace Corps analyze and use data to adjust its activities over the past five years? Examples? 68 10. What could be done to improve: a) data collection; b) analysis; and c) use? Evaluation Question 3. Peace Corps Approach The Peace Corps approach focuses on volunteer-based activities in various sites. 11.a. What are the strengths of the Peace Corps approach in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? 11.b. How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? 12. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where Volunteers work? Concluding Question 13. As we prepare to go to the field, what kinds of issues do you think we should be focusing on? 14. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the implementation of project activities or the results achieved? 69 Annex 2.3 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteers Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteers Name of interviewer Name of interviewee Country Counterpart Name Date of interview Informed consent signed ☐ Yes ☐ No Start time End time Introductory Questions 1.a. As a Peace Corps Volunteer, what is your role in this project? 1.b. How long have you been in this role? 1.c. How long with this specific community? The next question will be adapted based on the specific project activities in each country. Senegal The project focuses on four areas: agriculture, agroforestry, community economic development and health. 2.a. In which area(s) do you work? 2.b.i. Do you work with other Volunteer(s) in the same area(s)? 2.b. ii. Do you work with Volunteer(s) working in another area? If yes to b.i and/or b.ii, ask: 2.c. How does working with one or more other Volunteers affect your work? Zambia The project focuses on four areas: agriculture (RAP17), education (RED18), environment (LIFE19), and health (CHIP20). 2.a. In which area(s) do you work? 2.b.i. Do you work with other volunteer(s) in the same area(s)? 2.b.ii. Do you work with volunteer(s) working in another area? If yes to b.i and/or b.ii, ask: 2.c. How does working with one or more other volunteers affect your work? 17 Rural Aquaculture Promotion (RAP) Project. 18 Rural Education Development (RED) Project. 19 Linking Income Food and Environment (LIFE) Project. 20 Community Health Improvement Project (CHIP). 70 Evaluation Question 1. Outcomes 3. Focusing on the project area(s) in which you work, 3.a. To what extent did project activities achieve expected results? 3.b. To what extent has the project involved women beneficiaries in the achievement of these results? 4.a. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of these results? 4.b. How did they affect results? Interviewer will probe mentioning any of the factors below if they are not addressed: a) working with partners, counterpart, community members; b) support from Peace Corps Staff; c) innovation; and d) external factors. 4.c. To what extent did __________ (include only those factors in the following list that WERE NOT mentioned in previous response: a) working with partners; b) working with counterpart; c) working with community members; d) support from Peace Corps Staff; e) innovation; and f) external factors) affect the achievement of results? 4.d. How were results affected? 5.a. While doing your work within the project, what lessons did you learn about what worked? What should be maintained or built upon? 5.b. What lessons did you learn about what didn’t work? What would you do differently? 6. This question focuses on interventions positively affecting agriculture and/or nutrition-related outcomes for direct beneficiaries and communities in which Peace Corps Volunteers work: How could these interventions be replicated to maximize the potential for long term, sustainable positive impacts on beneficiaries? 7. To what extent has the project contributed to the following cross-cutting issues? a) gender; b) technology; c) climate; d) youth; e) HIV/AIDS; f) disability; g) use and involvement of volunteers; and h) other? Evaluation Question 2. Planning and Coordination 8. Please describe the process of collecting performance monitoring information. 8.a. What data is collected and from what source(s)? 8.b. Who collects the data? 8.c. How often? 8.d. What is done with the data collected? Ask in Senegal, ONLY for those who are part of the Dream Team: 21 8.f. As a member of the Dream Team, what role do you play in project design, monitoring and reporting? 8.g. To what extent has the Dream Team affected the process of i) project design (any adjustments based on data collected?); ii) monitoring; and iii) reporting? 21 A group of Volunteers in Senegal who are trained and ready to help their fellow volunteers with project design, monitoring, and reporting. 71 9. To what extent did PC analyze and use data to adjust its activities over the past five years? Examples? 10. What could be done to improve: a) data collection; b) analysis; and c) use? 11. What is your appreciation of the Volunteer Report Form as a tool for project monitoring and reporting? 11.a. Has this tool been changed during the project? 11.b. If yes, how have the changes affected the project monitoring and/or reporting processes? Evaluation Question 3. Peace Corps Approach The Peace Corps approach focuses on volunteer-based activities in various sites. 12.a. What are the strengths of the Peace Corps approach in achieving food security and nutrition outcomes? 12.b. How might these strengths be maximized and replicated? 13. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve food security and nutrition outcomes in the communities where Volunteers work? Concluding Question 13. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the implementation of project activities or the results achieved? 72 Annex 2.4 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteer Counterpart Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteer Counterpart Name of interviewer Name of interviewee Country Counterpart of Date of interview Informed consent signed ☐ Yes ☐ No Start time End time Introductory Questions 1.a. Which Peace Corps volunteer do you work with? 1.b. As a Volunteer Counterpart, what is your role? 1.c. How were you selected for this role? 1.d. How long have you been in this role? The next question will be adapted based on the specific project activities in each country. 2. In which project activities have you been involved? Evaluation Question 1. Outcomes 3.a. Did project activities achieve results? 3.b. If yes, what results did it achieve, 3.b.i. For beneficiaries? 3.b.ii. For community as a whole? 4.a. Did the project involve women beneficiaries in the achievement of these results? 4.b. If yes, how and with what results for women? 5.a. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of these results? 4.b. How did they affect results? Interviewer will probe mentioning any of the factors below if they are not addressed: a) collaboration between various actors; b) innovation; and c) external factors. 5.c. To what extent did __________ (include only those factors in the following list that WERE NOT mentioned in previous response: i) collaboration between various actors; ii) innovation; and iii) external factors) affect the achievement of results? 5.d. How were results affected? 73 6.a. While doing your work within the project, what lessons did you learn about what worked? What should be maintained or built upon? 6.b. What lessons did you learn about what didn’t work? What would you do differently? 7. To what extent has the project contributed to the following cross-cutting issues? a) gender; b) technology; c) climate; d) youth; e) HIV/AIDS; f) disability; g) other? Evaluation Question 2. Planning and Coordination 8.a. As a counterpart, are you involved in collecting data related to project activities? If no, skip to Evaluation Question 3. 8.b. If yes, what type of data? 8.c. How is the data collected? 8.d. How often? 8.e. How do you submit it (format)? 9. Have you observed any changes to project activities that were made based on the data collected? If yes, please specify the type of data and how it led to the changes made. Evaluation Question 3. Peace Corps Approach The Peace Corps approach focuses on volunteer-based activities in various sites. 10. What are the strengths of the Peace Corps approach in achieving project results? 11. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve project results in communities? Concluding Question 12. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the implementation of project activities or the results achieved? 74 Annex 2.5 Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Partner Key Informant Interview Guide – Peace Corps Volunteer Partner Name of interviewer Name of interviewee Country Peace Corps POC Date of interview Informed consent signed ☐ Yes ☐ No Start time End time Introductory Questions 1. In which project activities have you been involved? 2. What was your role in the implementation of activities? Evaluation Question 1. Outcomes 3.a. Did project activities achieve results? 3.b. If yes, what results did it achieve, 3.b.i. For beneficiaries? 3.b.ii. For community as a whole? 4.a. Did the project involve women beneficiaries in the achievement of these results? 4.b. If yes, how and with what results for women? 5.a. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of these results? 5.b. How did they affect results? 6.a. While doing your work within the project, what lessons did you learn about what worked? What should be maintained or built upon? 6.b. What lessons did you learn about what didn’t work? What would you do differently? 75 Evaluation Question 2. Planning and Coordination 7.a. As a partner, are you involved in collecting data related to project activities? If no, skip to Evaluation Question 3. 7.b. If yes, what type of data? 7.c. How is the data collected? 7.d. How often? 7.e. How do you submit it (format)? 8. Have you observed any changes to project activities that were made based on the data collected? If yes, please specify the type of data and how it led to the changes made. Evaluation Question 3. Peace Corps Approach The Peace Corps approach focuses on volunteer-based activities in various sites. 9. What are the strengths of the Peace Corps approach in achieving project results? 10. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve project results in communities? Concluding Question 11. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the implementation of project activities or the results achieved? 76 ANNEX 3.0 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE – BENEFICIARIES Focus Group Discussion Guide - Beneficiaries Name of facilitator Stakeholder group Country Volunteer(s) Date Number of participants ____Women ____ Men Number of signed informed consent forms Start time End time Introductory Questions 1. What were the main project activities you were involved in? 2.a. Did you play a role in how the project was implemented? 2.b. If yes, what was your role? Evaluation Question 1. Outcomes 3.a. Did project activities achieve results? 3.b. If yes, what results did it achieve, 3.b.i. For beneficiaries? 3.b.ii. For community as a whole? 4.a. Did the project involve women beneficiaries in the achievement of these results? 4.b. If yes, how and with what results for women? 5. Did the project affect your community, especially, regarding: a) gender; b) technology; c) climate; d) youth; e) HIV/AIDS; f) disability; g) other? 6.a. What factors (processes, interventions, etc.) have positively or negatively affected the achievement of these results? 6.b. How did they affect results? Evaluation Question 2. Planning and Coordination 7.a. Are you required to collect or provide data related to project activities? If no, skip to Evaluation Question 3. 7.b. If yes, what type of data? 7.c. Who collects the data and how? 7.d. How often? 78 8. Have you observed any changes to project activities that were made based on the data collected? If yes, please specify the type of data and how it led to the changes made. Evaluation Question 3. Peace Corps Approach The Peace Corps approach focuses on volunteer-based activities in various sites. 9.a. What has worked well with the Peace Corps approach in achieving project results? 9.b. What could be improved in this approach to better achieve project results in communities? Concluding Question 9. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the implementation of project activities or the results achieved? ANNEX 4.0 TEMPLATE FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION NOTES Country/City: Stakeholder group: Date: Number of participants: ____Women ____ Men Number of signed informed consent forms: Question # Notes Comments22 1 2 3 4 5 General comments: 23 22 While taking notes of responses for specific questions, include any helpful comments, such as nonverbal language, group dynamics, etc. 23 Include comments related to the focus group discussion as a whole, such as the influence of setting (e.g., distraction). 81 ANNEX 5.0 INFORMED CONSENT FORM 82 EVALUATION OF: Peace Corps Participating Agency Program Agreement (PAPA) EVALUATORS: Leona Ba and Matt Zimmerman You are being asked to take part in this evaluation. Before you decide to participate, it is important that you understand why the evaluation is being conducted and what it will involve. Please read the following information carefully. EVALUATION PURPOSE This evaluation is intended to provide information to support learning and continuous improvement for Peace Corps and USAID Bureau of Food Security’s (BFS) work. The evaluation will also assess: 1) what is working well and what is not working well in implementation; and 2) assess progress toward outcomes. Finally, it will make recommendations that BFS and Peace Corps can use to improve project implementation and better achieve intended outcomes. VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Your participation in this evaluation is voluntary and involves answering questions during a meeting that will last no more than one hour for interviews and no more than 1.25 hours for focus group discussions. You may decline to answer any or all questions and may decide to end your participation at any time. CONFIDENTIALITY Your responses will be kept confidential and data will be analyzed at the group level. No information that would identify you as a participant of this evaluation will be publicly reported. BENEFITS There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study. However, we hope that the information obtained from this study will help improve future project activities and results. CONSENT I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study. Participant’s signature _______________________________ Date __________ Evaluator’s signature _______________________________ Date __________ 83 ANNEX 6.0 RESULTS OF INFORMAL DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT 84 24 Data Quality Standard Description Analysis of PCV Data Quality 1. VALIDITY – Data should clearly and adequately represent the intended result. The data collected by PCVs did not systematically measure what they were supposed to measure. For example, the Feed the Future Indicator Handbook states that data for the indicator “Number of individuals receiving nutrition-related professional training through USG-supported programs” should not include sensitization meetings or one-off informational trainings.” However, 5 out of 18 of PCVs said they include this type of training when reporting their results. 2. RELIABILITY – Data should reflect stable and consistent data collection processes and analysis methods over time. Although Peace Corp has developed standardized data collection tools, many activities (e.g., application of new improved practices) do not have available standardized data collection tools and it is up to PCVs to determine how to collect the data. In addition, some words such as “training” above are not always defined in the same way. 3. TIMELINESS – Data should be available at a useful frequency, should be current, and should be timely enough to influence management decision-making. The Volunteer Reporting Form PCVs used to report the data they collect requires Internet, which they often do not have access to for several days, thus delaying the submission of data. 4. PRECISION – Data have a sufficient level of detail to permit management decision￾making; e.g., the margin of error is less than the anticipated change. PCVs are not evaluation specialists and do not have access to tools such as GPS and aerial photos that would allow precise measurement of areas like farm sizes. In addition, change in variables such as yields and income are only assessed using a combination of guessing and broad estimates 5. INTEGRITY – Data collected should have safeguards to minimize the risk of transcription error or data manipulation. Data collected by individual PCVs is self-reported. Therefore, the risk of transcription errors is quite high. 24 This checklist is based on the one provided in ADS 201 Additional Help: USAID Recommended Data Quality Assessment (DQA) Checklist (September 2016) 85 ANNEX 7.0 REFERENCES 86 REFERENCES EngenderHealth (2017, September 27, 2017). COPE Self-Assessment Process: Client-Oriented, Provider-Efficient. Retrieved from: Engenderhealth at: https://www.engenderhealth.org/pubs/quality/cope.php. FAO (2009). Zambia Nutrition Profile. Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division. Feed the Future (20160. Indicator Handbook: Definition Sheets. July 2016 version. Feed the Future (2016). 2016 Progress Report: Growing Prosperity For A Food-Secure Future. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Peace Corps (2017). Global Food Security Implementation Plan. Peace Corps (2016). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement: Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Progress Report. Peace Corps (2015). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement: Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Progress Report. Peace Corps (2014). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement: Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Progress Report. Peace Corps/Senegal (2016). Feed the Future Participating Agency Program Agreement with USAID/Bureau for Food Security: Annual Report. Peace Corps/Senegal (2015). Feed the Future Participating Agency Program Agreement with USAID/Bureau for Food Security: Annual Report. Peace Corps/Senegal (2015). Feed the Future PAPA with USAID/Senegal: Performance Management Plan. Peace Corps/Senegal (2014). Process Evaluation of Peace Corps/Senegal Master Farmer Program. The Evaluation Unit, Peace Corps Overseas Programming & Training Support (OPATS). Peace Corps/Senegal (2014). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement: Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Progress Report. Peace Corps/Zambia (2017). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement: An overview. Peace Corps/Zambia (2016). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement and Small Project Assistance: Annual Progress Report Fiscal Year 2016. Peace Corps/Zambia (2015). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement and Small Project Assistance: Annual Progress Report Fiscal Year 2015. Peace Corps/Zambia (2014). USAID/Peace Corps Global Food Security Agreement and Small Project Assistance: Annual Progress Report Fiscal Year 2015. USAID (2011). Participating Agency Program Agreement between the United Stated Agency for International Development and the United States Peace Corps. USAID (2016). Synthesis of Evaluations Related to the Feed the Future Learning Agenda. ZARI (2017). Dissemination and Adoption of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato Varieties in Eastern Zambia.