Evaluation Report
Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity 
in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ 
(SCALE) Award
September 2022
i
DISCLAIMER: This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through USAID. As an independent 
evaluation, the contents are solely the responsibility of Bodhi Global Analysis and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID, the 
United States Government, Mercy Corps, or the SCALE Award. The SCALE Award being evaluated was also made possible by the 
generous support of the American people through USAID.
ii
Table of Contents
Acronyms iv
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Introduction 4
II.a Project Background 4
II.b Purpose and Scope of Evaluation 5
II.c Evaluation Methodology 6
II.c.i Evaluation Framework 6
II.c.ii Data Collection 7
Desk Review 7
Key informant interviews (KIIs) 8
Focus group discussions (FGD) 8
Online survey 9
II.c.iii Analysis and Reporting 10
II.c.iv Limitations 11
III. Findings 12
III.a Program design 12
EQ1.1 Overall program efficiency 12
EQ1.2 Staff structure 15
EQ1.3 Emergency partner engagement 17
III.b Relevance and Effectiveness 19
EQ2.1 Technical relevance 19
EQ2.2 Effectiveness/impact of capacity strengthening activities 21
EQ2.3 Effectiveness/impact of resources/tools 23
EQ2.4 Effectiveness/impact of sharing mechanisms 25
III.c 3. Engagement efficiency 26
EQ3.1 Outreach approach 26
EQ3.2 Outreach timing 28
EQ3.3 Engagement efficiency 29
III.d Sustainability 30
EQ4.1 Scalability of training 31
EQ4.2 Sustainability of resources/tools 32
EQ4.3 BHA Learning Application 34
iii
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 35
Program design 35
Relevance and Effectiveness 36
Engagement efficiency 37
Sustainability 38
Recommendations for USAID 38
V. Annexes 40
V.a Scope of Work 40
V.b Instruments 45
V.b.i KII Guide - Donor (USAID/BHA) 45
V.b.ii KII Guide - Program staff (SCALE Award Team) 47
V.b.iii KII Guide - Implementing Partners (RFSAs) 49
V.b.iv KII Guide - Other stakeholders (Save the Children) 51
V.b.v KII Guide - Other stakeholders (Other Food Security Support Mechanisms) 54
V.b.vi FGD Guide - Implementation Partners (Community of Practice) 56
V.b.vii FGD Guide - Technical Committee 58
V.b.vii Online survey 60
V.c Online survey results 66
iv
Acronyms
AKLDP Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy Project
ANRM Agriculture and natural resource management
AA Associate Award
BHA (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
CDF Community Development Funds
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CoP Communities of Practice
COVID Coronavirus disease
DFAP Development Food Assistance Program
DFSA Development Food Security Activities (previously DFAP)
EFSP Emergency Food Security Program
EQ Evaluation Question
FFP (USAID) Office of Food for Peace (now merged with OFDA to form BHA)
FGD Focus group discussion
FSN Food Security and Nutrition (Network)
FSSM Food security support mechanism
IDA International Disaster Assistance (account)
IDEAL Implementer-Led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning
ISSD Integrated Seed Sector Development
IP Implementing Partners
KII Key Informant Interview
MMCA Make Me a Change Agent (Training)
MC Mercy Corps
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NRM Natural resource management
OFDA (USAID) Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (now merged with FFP to form BHA)
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD-DAC (OECD) Development Assistance Committee
PCS Program Cycle Support
PMP Performance Management Plan
PRO-WASH Practices, Research and Operations in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
RD Resilience Design
RFSA Resilience Food Security Activities (formerly DFSA)
R&I (PCS) Refine and Implement (phase)
v
SC Save the Children
SCALE Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment
SPRING Strengthening Partnerships Results and Innovations in Nutrition Globally
TC Technical Committee
TOPS Technical and Operational Performance Support Program
TOR Terms of Reference
ToT Training of trainers
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
1
I. Executive Summary
To build on USAID’s Technical and Operational Performance Support (TOPS) program, the Office of Food for Peace 
(FFP, now merged into the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, BHA) funded the Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment (SCALE) Associate Award (AA). It is a five-year USD $4.9 million 
capacity strengthening, knowledge sharing and learning initiative operating 2018 to 2023.
Its aim is to strengthen the impact, sustainability and scalability of BHA-funded agriculture, natural resource 
management (NRM), and off-farm/non-farm livelihood activities in both emergency and non-emergency contexts. 
Implemented by Mercy Corps in collaboration with Save the Children, SCALE partners with food security 
implementers to capture, generate, apply and share knowledge to foster more resilient agricultural systems and enhance 
income opportunities for the world’s most vulnerable.
Purpose, Scope and Methodology
In March 2022, Bodhi Global Analysis was contracted by Mercy Corps Global to undertake a final evaluation of the 
SCALE Award. SCALE is completing its fifth and final year of project implementation, and as such, the purpose of the 
final evaluation is to assess specific aspects of the relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, and performance of 
the SCALE Award. The evaluation also provides recommendations for future food security support mechanisms and 
other capacity strengthening and learning activities. 
To answer these research questions, the evaluation team implemented a multi-phased evaluation. This triangulation of 
multiple sources of data ensures a strong level of robustness and reliability to the findings of the evaluation. The 
evaluation team employed:
● Desk review of documents, including program design documents, reports, activities documentation, training 
materials and program resources;
● Key informant interviews (KIIs) with SCALE program staff, USAID/BHA staff, implementing partners (IPs) 
and other stakeholders;
● Focus group discussions (FGDs) with SCALE program staff, Community of Practice (CoP) participants, and 
Technical Committee (TC) members;
● Online survey sent out to IP staff and other beneficiaries of SCALE’s activities, with 72 responses, including 
40 from IPs
Key Findings
Program design: SCALE’s adaptive model set up a strong structure for the program to respond to IP needs, through 
both the type of support offered and the priority focus areas. This is because programmatic decisions were made 
through regular consultations with IPs and the donor. This model was supported by a technically strong staff and their 
positive relationship with the donor. The SCALE team also had effective channels to learn about IP and donor needs, 
including the Technical Committee. More importantly, SCALE had discussions with the wider community through 
roundtables and learning events, and via informal, ad hoc channels, such as emails and mentorship discussions.
IPs found the SCALE team to be effectively managed, with the right technical skills. They found communication with 
the SCALE team to be frequent and appropriate to their needs. SCALE’s staffing structure consisted of a small team of 
permanent staff and a number of external consultants, which was appropriate given the budget and uncertain nature of 
SCALE’s programming. The Technical Committee provided an important mechanism for technical knowledge sharing 
between SCALE and IPs, but had limitations in its ability to validate SCALE focus areas and for IPs to understand 
BHA priorities.
2
Limitations related to SCALE’s funding streams and approach restricted its ability to cater to BHA-funded emergency 
partners. Despite emergency programs being part of SCALE’s mandate, SCALE’s approach has generally focused on 
non-emergency program needs, often due to funding restrictions and, according to some respondents, a mismatch 
between SCALE’s long-term approaches and the short-term interventions typical of emergency programs. The few 
responses from emergency program staff suggest that budget and time are the biggest barriers to engaging with SCALE.
Relevance and Effectiveness: IP respondents found the types of resources and support SCALE provided relevant and 
useful to the needs of their agriculture, NRM and livelihoods work, particularly the resilient agriculture and MMCA 
trainings. When IPs were asked what technical assistant gaps they still had, most mentioned specific topics related to 
climate and markets. SCALE was able to fill capacity gaps that were common among IPs overall through its main 
support activities, as well as a number of prioritized gaps of different IPs through ad hoc support.
IPs found SCALE’s capacity strengthening activities effective, particularly the personalized coaching/mentorship. They 
appreciated the technical rigor and practical nature of the support. IPs receiving resilient agriculture training were able 
to integrate knowledge in their programming and were especially successful when they received follow-up support and 
coaching. For the MMCA training, many IPs were able to apply knowledge and notice immediate results.
IPs felt SCALE learning documents and tools were useful and applicable to their work. The most applied resources and 
tools were those used in conjunction with other SCALE support activities (such as training), particularly the SBC and 
resilient agriculture manuals and tools. While there were not many significant barriers, the main reasons IPs had for not 
accessing and applying SCALE resources were not having time to search through the Food Security and Nutrition 
(FSN) Network website, having sufficient experts on their teams and language barriers.
Despite knowledge sharing events providing practical knowledge and focusing on relevant technical areas, based on the 
online survey, IPs were only ‘somewhat’ able to apply this knowledge into their work. By nature, these events are not
tailored to individual IPs. While events on broader practices, including COVID mitigation or social behavior change,
were applicable to a wider range of IPs, events focused on more specialized topics, such as financial inclusion or 
migration, might not have been. Regardless, IPs found it useful to hear other perspectives, connect with others and have 
specific techniques and resources explained to them, even if knowledge was not directly applied. IPs would prefer in￾person events, with longer sessions and more opportunities for networking.
Engagement efficiency: The SCALE team was able to leverage numerous channels to outreach to IPs, and ultimately 
engaged with IPs that were most responsive. While IPs were happy with the ways SCALE made first contact, there 
were a number of challenges for IPs to engage with SCALE support activities. This includes not having time and not 
being aware of what SCALE could provide.
SCALE successfully reached out IPs at the start of the RFSA cycle, through introductions at PCS-led Inception 
workshops and follow-up afterwards. SCALE was also able to engage IPs during their implementation phase by 
initiating collaborations on activities such as case studies and webinar presentations. This increased IP contact time 
with SCALE, often leading to deeper relationships, and eventually IP requests for support. IPs agree that SCALE 
support can be useful throughout the RFSA cycle, although early planning is most helpful.
While there is some correlation between the amount of support received and satisfaction with SCALE support, IPs are 
more satisfied when they are fully aware of what support activities SCALE can offer, have made intentional choices on 
what support suits them best, and feel that the support has been tailored to their needs.
Sustainability: IPs were able to replicate SCALE training, especially resilient agriculture and MMCA training. Many 
IPs cascaded training down many levels, primarily to fellow staff members, and eventually program beneficiaries. The 
key challenge was maintaining quality at each level. Some IPs provided examples of passing training to people outside 
3
of their programs. In terms of long-term sustainability, SCALE has been producing e-learning content to ensure its 
materials can continue beyond the program.
Respondents are very likely to continue using SCALE resources and tools beyond the program, as they have been 
internalized into their practices and library of tools. Sharing of resources and tools is very widespread, particularly 
documents on resilient agriculture and SBC. IP staff are using resources and tools beyond their current BHA-funded 
program.
As SCALE is well-placed to understand the issues that country programs are facing and donor interest, SCALE has 
been able to provide feedback to BHA about IP needs and to influence BHA priorities.
Recommendations
Program design:
● Continue the current adaptive model focused on prioritizing activities to respond to IP needs
● Collect perspectives from a wider pool of IP representation
● Consider setting up a centralized platform for TC members to share feedback
● Prioritize engagement with regional consultants to be on-call 
● Ensure adequate communications support 
● Develop an approach to providing support to emergency programs
Relevance and Effectiveness:
● Continue to focus training topics on areas that can benefit a wide range of IPs, alongside providing ad-hoc 
support to fill additional IP capacity gaps
● Prioritize the co-facilitation of training with local consultants to ensure material are fully adapted to the 
context
● Develop a directory of SCALE learning documents and tools;
● Consider adding a comment section on the FSN Network website for each learning resource
● Facilitate more in-person knowledge sharing events to facilitate more networking opportunities
Engagement efficiency:
● Take a comprehensive approach to making contact with IPs (i.e., aim to reach out to all IPs)
● Provide full information of SCALE’s support activities on the FSN Network page for SCALE
● Continue to explore methods of providing asynchronous support to IPs, such as through e-learning modules
● Continue making first contact with IPs at PCS-led workshops (with follow-up afterwards) and through direct 
contact
Sustainability:
● Prioritize co-facilitations with local training centers and local consultants 
● Continue investing in e-learning video modules
● Cross-post SCALE resources on other relevant learning platforms to reach more potential users and as a 
redundancy tactic
● Continue acting as an informal conduit for collecting IP feedback on BHA processes
4
II. Introduction
The U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), together 
with its implementing partners, has combated hunger and malnutrition among vulnerable groups for more than 60 
years. Working around the world, BHA works in both emergency and development contexts to improve and 
sustain food and nutrition security in vulnerable populations.1
Agriculture, natural resource management (NRM), and sustainable livelihoods featured prominently in USAID’s 
Office of Food for Peace’s (FFP)2 food assistance and security strategy. While FFP saw significant developments 
in these sectors, a number of evaluations highlighted deficiencies in a series of areas3
:
● Inefficiencies in knowledge transfer between headquarters technical staff and field agents, and between 
field agents and farmers that do not optimize best technical practices and adult learning methodologies; 
● Insufficient attention paid to nutrition sensitive agricultural approaches and non-farm livelihoods; 
● Limitations in vulnerability targeting; 
● Inadequate attention to strategies, sustainability, and scalability of interventions leading to limited 
systems change; and 
● Limited use of multiple source data during design and implementation.
FFP funded the Technical and Operational Performance Support (TOPS) Program from 2010 to 2018, which 
provided capacity strengthening support in agriculture and NRM, among other key areas. Under the agriculture 
and NRM component (ANRM), Mercy Corps (MC) partnered with various agencies and programs such as the 
TOPS consortium partners, World Vision, Strengthening Partnerships Results and Innovations in Nutrition 
Globally (SPRING), and the Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy Project (AKLDP), to 
deliver a suite of knowledge and learning activities. The TOPS ANRM component provided direct field training 
to over 700 participants in 12 countries across a range of topics, supported 14 technical knowledge sharing events 
and over 30 technical sessions, facilitated networking activities and developed learning briefs, guides, toolkits, 
and training of trainers (ToT) materials.4
II.a Project Background
To build on TOPS’ program outputs, FFP (now merged with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance [OFDA] to 
form BHA) funded the Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment (SCALE) Associate 
Award (AA), a five-year capacity strengthening, knowledge sharing and learning initiative from January 2018-
2023 with a budget of USD $4.9 million. Its aim is to strengthen the impact, sustainability and scalability of 
BHA-funded agriculture, natural resource management, and off-farm/non-farm livelihood activities in both 
emergency and non-emergency contexts. Implemented by Mercy Corps in collaboration with Save the Children 
(SC), SCALE partners with food security implementers to capture, generate, apply and share knowledge to foster 
more resilient agricultural systems and enhance income opportunities for the world’s most vulnerable.5
The SCALE Award’s strategic approach incorporates activities under four knowledge mechanisms (knowledge 
capture, generation, application and sharing) that together provide a cohesive and integrated long-term approach 
 1 SCALE Associate Award Technical Narrative (Save the Children).
2 USAID’s Office of Food for Peace (FFP) merged with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) to form BHA in 2020. 
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 SCALE Year 5 Workplan Narrative.
5
(Figure 1 below). The approach is revised every year as part of SCALE’s adaptive management approach to 
ensure it remains current with USAID/BHA implementer needs.6
Figure 1: Mapping of the SCALE Award’s logic model and Performance Management Plan (PMP)
II.b Purpose and Scope of Evaluation
In March 2022, Bodhi Global Analysis was contracted by Mercy Corps Global to undertake a final evaluation of 
the SCALE Award. SCALE is completing its fifth and final year of project implementation, and as such, the 
purpose of the final evaluation is to assess specific aspects of the relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, 
and performance of the SCALE Award. The evaluation reviews the outcomes of the SCALE Award while 
simultaneously gathering and analyzing information about the interest and needs of implementing partners for 
future agriculture, NRM and/or livelihoods-related support. The evaluation also provides recommendations for 
future food security support mechanisms and other capacity strengthening and learning activities.
The evaluation team included an Evaluation Consultant and Research Assistant, and was overseen by Bodhi’s 
Director and their Head of M&E.
 6 Ibid.
6 
Given how closely SCALE has worked with the Save the Children-led food security support mechanism (FSSM) 
Practices, Research and Operations in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (PRO-WASH), Bodhi worked closely with 
the PRO-WASH evaluators to coordinate and to undertake some joint stakeholder consultations and the 
implementation of the online survey. 
II.c Evaluation Methodology
This mixed-methods evaluation is structured along the learning questions set out by the evaluation’s scope of 
work. The questions are organized into four categories: program design, relevance and effectiveness, engagement 
efficiency and sustainability. While not following the framework completely, the evaluation questions (EQ) use a 
similar understanding of key evaluation terms as described in OECD-DAC’s Evaluation Criteria.7
II.c.i Evaluation Framework 
The table below provides the full list of 13 evaluation questions. 
Table 1: Evaluation Framework
Evaluation Category Evaluation Question (EQ)
1. Program design:
Was SCALE designed correctly 
to meet its goal?
1.1 Overall program efficiency: How did the technical design of the award and the level 
of flexibility affect SCALE’s ability to respond to implementing partner (IP)8 and donor 
needs, and adapt to external circumstances?
1.2 Efficiency of staff structure: How appropriate and effective is SCALE’s 
organizational and staffing structure for the implementation of its work?
1.3 Emergency partner engagement: How did the design, staffing and management of the 
Award affect its ability to engage with and meet the needs of BHA-funded emergency 
partners?
2 Relevance and Effectiveness: 
How effective was SCALE’s 
engagement with IPs and what 
were the impacts of its technical 
assistance?
2.1 Technical relevance: How do IPs perceive the relevance and utility of the different 
types of support offered by SCALE?
2.2 Effectiveness/impact of capacity strengthening activities: To what degree do IPs feel 
they were able to apply the knowledge gained through SCALE’s capacity strengthening 
activities (eg. training, mentorship)? What benefits do IPs perceive from these activities?
2.3 Effectiveness/impact of resources/tools: To what degree did IPs use resources/tools 
developed by SCALE within the specific projects the award supported? What benefits do 
IPs perceive from these resources/tools?
2.4 Effectiveness/impact of sharing mechanisms: To what degree do IPs feel SCALE’s 
knowledge sharing platforms (eg. communities of practice, webinars, learning groups) 
support them in their implementation? What benefits do IPs perceive from these platforms?
3. Engagement efficiency: 
How effective was SCALE’s 
3.1 Outreach approach: Looking at the approaches SCALE took to initiate engagement 
with IPs, what worked well and what could be improved to make this process more 
effective?
 
7 The OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria are: Relevance – is the intervention doing the right things?; Coherence – how well does the intervention fit?; 
Effectiveness – is the intervention achieving its objectives?; Efficiency – how well are resources being used?; Impact – what difference does the 
intervention make?; Sustainability – will the benefits last?
8 BHA/SCALE Implementing Partners (IPs) are BHA-funded food security programs, which include (non-emergency) Resilience Food Security 
Activities (formerly Development Food Security Activities - DFSA, which were formerly Development Food Assistance Programs - DFAP), and 
emergency activities, including Emergency Food Security Programs (EFSP).
7 
Evaluation Category Evaluation Question (EQ)
approach to outreach / 
engagement with IPs?
3.2 Outreach timing: At what points in the RFSA cycle was the outreach to IPs most and 
least relevant and effective, and why?
3.3 Engagement efficiency: Were IPs satisfied with their level of engagement with 
SCALE? Did IPs feel their level of engagement was appropriate given what they wanted to 
achieve by receiving support from SCALE, and why?
4 Sustainability: 
How have IPs institutionalized 
the resources and technical tools 
provided by SCALE? What 
influence did SCALE have on 
BHA policies, standards, or 
program quality?
4.1 Scalability of training: How, and at what level of quality/consistency, are IPs 
replicating/cascading learning from SCALE training within their programs?
4.2 Sustainability of resources/tools: To what degree do IPs believe they will continue to 
use, share and institutionalize the resources/tools developed by SCALE after the end of 
SCALE and beyond the specific projects the two awards supported?
4.3 BHA Learning Application: How did SCALE inform (and facilitate IP reflections and 
feedback towards) advancements or changes to USAID/BHA policies, standards, guidance?
II.c.ii Data Collection 
To answer these research questions, the evaluation team implemented a multi-phased evaluation employing desk 
review, qualitative primary data collection, an online survey and secondary analysis. This triangulation of 
multiple sources of data ensures a strong level of robustness and reliability to the findings of the evaluation.
Desk Review
SCALE provided a set of project documents to be reviewed as part of the evaluation. The table below contains a 
breakdown of the selection and additional documentation that were identified during the data collection phase of 
the evaluation.
Table 2: Reviewed documentation
Document type Document
Program design and reporting 
(proposals, contracts, 
workplans, quarterly reports)
● Proposal – ‘SC SCALE Associate Award Technical Narrative’
● Contract – ‘MC TOPS SCALE executed award’
● Workplans – Year 1-5 
● Quarterly reports – Year 1-4 
● Y1 Strategy/Stakeholder Consultation Notes
Monitoring and Evaluation 
(including quantitative data)
● Results framework
● Performance Management Plan (PMP) Data (Year 1-5)
● Events Data (Y1-4)
● End of Year Annual Survey Data (Y3-4)
● Quarterly Reflection Meeting Notes (Y4)
Activities documentation
● Anglophone Communities of Practice (CoP) - Terms of Reference (TOR), Meeting 
Notes, Recordings, Attendance
● Francophone Communities of Practice (CoP) - TOR, Meeting Notes, Recordings, 
Attendance
● Migration Learning Group – Meeting Notes, Attendance
● Seeds Learning Group – Meeting Notes
● Technical Committee (TC) – TOR, Meeting Notes 2018-2022
Training documents
● Make Me a Change Agent (MMCA) - Bangladesh, DRC/CRS, DRC/MC, Ethiopia, 
Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Lessons Learned MMCA Trainings
● Permagarden Approach – DRC, Madagascar
● Resilience Design (RD) – Zimbabwe
8 
Document type Document
● Mentorship - DRC
Program resources ● 48 learning documents / tools
● 20 event recordings / summaries
Key informant interviews (KIIs)
Interviews were held with individuals most relevant to answering the evaluation questions, in the form of semi￾structured discussions against a discussion guide. They were held online using Google Meets. The team 
conducted a total of 34 interviews with donors, program staff, implementing partners and other stakeholders, as 
outlined in the table below. 
Table 3: KII List
Stakeholder type Details
Donor
● USAID/BHA (Activity Manager)
● USAID/BHA (Award Agreement Officer)
● USAID/BHA (Technical staff x2)
SCALE Program staff
● Original Program Director & current MC Director for Agriculture
● Current Program Director and former Collaboration and Learning Specialist
● Current Senior Specialist - Program Quality & Capacity Strengthening and former 
Capacity Strengthening Specialist
● Livelihoods and Markets Specialist
● Program Advisor of Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) Africa / SCALE
● Current Collaboration and Learning Specialist 
● SCALE technical advisors – Resilient Agriculture (x2)
Implementing partners
● Apolou (MC)
● Nawiri (Catholic Relief Services - CRS) 
● VimPlus (ACDI/VOCA)
● Ayiti pi Djamn (CRS)
● Nobo Jatra (World Vision)
● Girma (CRS) 
● Amalima Loko (Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture)
● SAPLING (Helen Keller International)
● FSP-Enyanya (MC)
● Maharo (CRS) 
● PAHAL (MC) 
● FIOVANA (ADRA International)
● Budikadidi (Catholic Relief Services) 
● Takunda (CARE International) 
Other stakeholders
● Other food security support mechanisms (FSSMs)
● PRO-WASH - Practices, Research and Operations in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
● IDEAL - Implementer-Led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning
● PCS - Program Cycle Support
● Save the Children’s Director (Liaison for all FSSMs) 
● SCALE’s Save the Children “Program Manager”
Focus group discussions (FGD) 
The team supplemented the KIIs with 5 group discussions online, including two with regional Communities of 
Practice and one with the Technical Committee. Bodhi held reflection sessions with SCALE staff at the beginning 
and at the end of the data collection period. 
9 
Table 4: FGD list
Stakeholder type Details
Communities of Practice and 
Technical Committee members
● Discussions with Regional Communities of Practice – Anglophone and 
Francophone groups
● Discussion with the Technical Committee
SCALE staff
● SCALE staff discussion at the start of the data collection process to provide 
context and initial findings
● SCALE staff validation workshop to present preliminary findings at the end 
of the data collection process
Online survey
Bodhi designed and deployed a digitally delivered survey using its platform, SurveyToGo to supplement and help 
triangulate qualitative findings. The survey was implemented together with the survey for PRO-WASH, and was 
rolled out in both English and French. The survey questions followed topics that aligned with the overarching 
evaluation questions. Survey respondents included staff from BHA implementing partner agencies, and other 
beneficiaries of SCALE’s activities, such as subscribers of SCALE’s newsletter and other listservs. The sample of 
self-selected respondents are therefore not statistically representative, but can nevertheless help contextualize 
findings and provide supplementary information. The objective was solicit as many responses as possible, with at 
least 40 responses from current and past BHA-funded programs. After not receiving sufficient responses from the 
6000+ people on the listservs, SCALE and PRO-WASH followed up by emailing management and technical 
leads of RFSAs, primarily current programs.
In total, SCALE received 72 survey responses. A breakdown of the respondents’ organizations is listed in Table 
5. Of the respondents, 40 work for BHA-funded programs (i.e., implementing partners), 5 work for USAID and 
27 are from other organizations, including research institutions (4), national/local government (3), local 
organizations (5), international organizations (13) and other (2). 
Table 5: Breakdown of all SCALE online survey respondents
Organization type
BHA-funded RFSA 35
BHA-funded emergency program 4
USAID-funded Associate Award / Food Security Support Mechanisms 1
USAID non-BHA staff 2
USAID BHA staff 3
Other 27
Looking specifically at BHA-funded programs, responses came from 14 different non-emergency programs, 4 
emergency programs and one other Associate Award, totaling 40 IP respondents. As sampling was not 
representative, it is important to note that the sample of IPs respondents is dominated by responses from three 
BHA-funded programs: FIOVANA, FSP-Enyanya and Takunda. These respondents make up close to half of the 
40 IP respondents. It follows that the sample is biased towards Central and Southern Africa programs, and 
programs with high engagement with SCALE (as designated by the SCALE team).
10 
II.c.iii Analysis and Reporting
The evaluation matrix served as the analytical framework for the report and therefore, analysis was structured to 
address the evaluation questions. The evaluation team conducted qualitative analysis, mapping key themes and 
content onto a findings, conclusions and recommendations matrix. Data analysis used triangulation throughout, to 
verify consistency of findings across different respondent types. For the online survey, the evaluation team used 
STATA to produce descriptive statistics and disaggregate by key groups to complement qualitative findings. A 
full table of results, including key disaggregations, is included in Annex V.c. 
Key IP disaggregations used in the analysis include categorizations by region, engagement level, frequency of 
interaction with SCALE and respondent role. Sample sizes for these groups are provided in Table 6 below. 
Disaggregation by region and RFSA engagement level were also used when analyzing qualitative interviews with 
RFSAs.
Table 6: Breakdown of BHA-funded program online survey respondents (from BHA-funded RFSAs, BHA-funded 
emergency programs and USAID-funded Associate Awards/Food Security Support Mechanisms)
Region (n=39)
Central and Southern Africa 26
East Africa and the Horn 5
West Africa and the Sahel 3
Asia 5
RFSA engagement level (according to the SCALE team) (n=39)
High (multiple trainings, mentorship or refreshers, with engagement in 
knowledge sharing events and/or research support) 23
Medium (one-off training with little to no follow-on support, or support with a 
research initiative or learning document) 3 
Low/None (attendance in a knowledge sharing event or resource download 
only, or no interaction) 13
Frequency of respondent interaction with SCALE (n=40)
Regular (at least monthly) 8
Occasional (quarterly or bi-annually) 15
Limited (once per year, or only once) 14
Never 3
Role (n=40)
Chief of Party / Deputy Chief of Party (Program Leadership) 3
Agriculture, NRM and livelihood staff 23
Social behavior change (SBC) staff 7
Other 7
11
Following completion of data collection and preliminary analysis, the team provided SCALE with a preliminary 
findings presentation on 27 July 2022. Then, following completion of the analysis phase, the team submitted a 
draft evaluation report on 05 August. After a series of comments from the MC team, a second draft was produced 
on 22 August. The team presented the findings in a validation workshop with USAID on 24 August, following by 
this final version of the report. The team will conduct an online learning workshop to disseminate findings and 
recommendations on 21 September, which will be accompanied by a summary report.
II.c.iv Limitations
As with all projects, the team contended with several limitations during the implementation of this evaluation. 
● Recall bias - After an extended period, some respondents’ recall of project activities may have faded. As 
findings are triangulated with other sources, this limitation is minimal.
● Response bias - Informants may have formed their responses based on personal motivation rather than 
the most accurate information. As findings are triangulated with other sources, this limitation is minimal.
● Data gaps – A number of key informants from the evaluation’s stakeholder list were not accessible, 
mainly specific contacts working with RSFAs selected for interviews. While this may have slightly 
limited the depth of information available, this was mitigated by oversampling RFSAs and finding 
suitable alternative contacts working within the same RFSA. In the end, the evaluation team managed to 
interview at least one key informant from each selected RFSA (except for one). Other limitations coming 
from data gaps were mitigated through triangulation, as much as possible.
● Unrepresentative survey sample – As mentioned, the survey is not representative, as respondents were 
self-selected. The final sample is biased towards the experience of three BHA-funded programs with high 
engagement, and based in Central and Southern Africa, as well as Agriculture, NRM or livelihoods staff 
members. While survey information is only meant to provide some additional context and to complement 
qualitative findings, Bodhi has further mitigated this limitation by not overstating trends, and looking at 
disaggregations to understand how valid trends are across groups.
12 
III. Findings
This section presents findings to the evaluation questions, organized by Program Design, Relevance and 
Effectiveness, Engagement Efficiency, and Sustainability. It is followed by conclusions and recommendations. 
III.a Program design: Was SCALE designed correctly to meet its goal?
The first section looks at the efficiency of the program model and staff structure to meet IP and donor needs, and 
at engagement with emergency programs. 
EQ1.1 Overall program efficiency: How did the technical design of the award and the level of 
flexibility affect SCALE’s ability to respond to implementing partner (IP) and donor needs, 
and adapt to external circumstances?
This question looks at how the design of the SCALE Award affected its overall program efficiency. It looks at 
whether SCALE’s programmatic organization and adaptive quality enabled the program to achieve its objective 
of providing support which meets IP and donor needs. It also looks at how the flexibility of the program allowed 
for frequent refinement in strategic direction, and for the program to adapt to external factors, including the 
coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic and the Food for Peace/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance merger.
SCALE’s adaptive model enabled the program to respond to IP needs. Despite challenges, the model 
worked due to a flexible budget, a positive relationship with USAID donors and capable SCALE staff.
The structure of SCALE’s program activities around four knowledge areas worked well, according to the 
SCALE team. This model was carried over from the previous program (TOPS), and was meant to be fluid, 
without strict budget allocations for each knowledge area. The SCALE team noted that some support activities 
might have multiple objectives that may fall under two knowledge areas (for example, a learning group having a 
knowledge sharing and capacity strengthening objective), but as there was no strong mandate on how to divide up 
resourcing, this was not a problem. As a way of framing SCALE’s activities, the SCALE team feel the current 
model is helpful and does not need to be changed. 
With these broad buckets, SCALE was set up so that the thematic focus of the activities would be 
determined through consultations with the donor and IPs. Key informants noted that the design phase of the 
program was relatively quick, with the intention of there being ample time for proactive planning at the start of 
the program, prior to rolling out support activities. By nature, the SCALE Award needed to be flexible and 
primarily designed to address gaps. Indeed, a substantial part of the first year was focused on consultations to 
determine the main technical areas to prioritize. The adaptive model also enabled the SCALE team to pivot during 
the program to respond to newly determined needs. A prime example of this is SCALE adding new focus areas on 
seeds, markets in crises and economic analyses.
The main enabler for the adaptive model was the dedicated SCALE team and their positive working 
relationship with the donor. Interviews with the donor and with Save the Children suggest that the team had 
strong technical expertise to understand IP capacity gaps, and the agility to operate well under BHA protocol. 
SCALE had frequent meetings with the donor to ensure strategic alignment, but at the same time, had sufficient 
freedom to make decisions independently, for example, on technical priorities, to ensure the program progressed 
without delays. 
13
Another challenge with SCALE’s adaptive model was establishing a robust monitoring system to plan and 
track progress towards specific outputs and outcomes. While outputs were easier to monitor, targets set were 
naturally based on best estimates, given the flexibility in activities. For a support mechanism like SCALE, 
tracking outcomes was not as easy given the challenges with collecting certain data that required inputs from IPs.
SCALE used an annual survey for IPs to collect outcome-level data. Given the survey is voluntary, SCALE could 
not ensure all IPs with whom they had interacted in the previous year responded to the survey. Additionally, some 
output-level indicators also required IP feedback, such as tracking the number of community members trained by 
RFSA staff who had been trained by SCALE. This required RFSA staff to supply SCALE with their data on a 
quarterly basis, which sometimes proved difficult to collect, despite an agreement from the RFSA ahead of the 
initial training from SCALE. Nevertheless, SCALE was able to monitor and improve progress through quarterly 
reports and reflection meetings, which tended to be more qualitative. This proved to be more useful for SCALE, 
as they provided more nuance and context. They also allowed for recalibration of desired outcomes, which is 
essential for programs with adaptive models, in which needs of those receiving program support can change. 
Thus, the SCALE team felt they were not restricted by limitations with their quantitative data. 
SCALE had effective channels to learn about IP and donor needs, including the Technical Committee (TC). 
More importantly, mechanisms to discuss issues with the wider IP community proved useful.
Consultations with IPs throughout the program were essential to understanding IP needs. At the beginning 
of the program, the priority focus areas for SCALE were determined through general consultations with IPs to 
discuss their agriculture, NRM and livelihood needs. Through these discussions, SCALE explored IP gaps and 
needs, and identified existing tools and resources (where available) that would fill those needs. If none existed, 
SCALE made plans for developing or adapting the necessary resources or connecting IPs to other partners who 
could provide this support. Throughout the program, more targeted consultations took place to understand more 
specialized needs. This included roundtables with IPs and the donor on market system development for 
employment and on seed systems to understand where there are common IP capacity gaps. It was also used to
determine how SCALE could best contribute, and what value it would provide by offering these types of 
resources and support.
Other approaches included less formal methods of communicating with IPs. These included attending BHA’s 
Program Cycle Support (PCS)9 workshops during the Refine and Implement (R&I) year and more informal 
conversations and evaluation surveys with IPs through the Communities of Practice (CoPs) and webinars, as well 
as on-going email and phone exchanges. The SCALE team found that reaching the wider community through 
these methods enabled them to hear from a greater diversity of stakeholders. 
The TC provided a regular and formal channel for the SCALE team to interact with IPs. The TC is led by a 
member of the SCALE team and includes a representative from BHA and key technical staff from organizations 
implementing BHA-funded programs, to represent the interests of IPs. The key aim of the group is to ‘ensure that 
SCALE actions are best aligned with the needs of implementing organizations and coordinated with 
organizational internal knowledge strengthening activities for best effect.’10 While IP FGD respondents from the 
committee found the TC to provide a space for SCALE to share potential activities, they felt there was less 
opportunity for them to provide input on SCALE’s activities and to share their understanding of IP needs. 
Bimonthly meetings were scheduled, but both SCALE and TC respondents acknowledge that engagement has 
been inconsistent. They have questioned whether the group serves as an appropriate channel for feedback, given 
 9 The Program Cycle Support (PCS) Associate Award supports IPs to design and implement activities that result in food and nutrition security gains. 
It provides support at key points during the RFSA lifecycle including the Refine and Implement (R&I) process, which starts with the Inception 
Workshop and ends with the Culmination Workshop.
10 SCALE Technical Committee TOR (July 2018).
14
the small number of organizations present (with limited emergency partner representation) and varied levels of 
engagement from different members. Nevertheless, the SCALE team feels that it is important to have a group to 
which the program is accountable, beyond only the donor. They have attempted to restructure TC meetings to 
encourage more engagement over the years, but due to low participation, the TC tended to act more as a 
mechanism to update IPs than a channel for comprehensive IP feedback. It is also useful to note that during the 
beginning of the COVID pandemic, participation was much higher, with more engaged discussions around what 
IPs were experiencing and how SCALE could provide support. This suggests that TC participation is in part 
related to need, for example, during times of uncertainty.
To understand donor needs, SCALE had monthly meetings with BHA and checked in regularly to be in 
consensus about program priorities. SCALE shared resources under development with the donor for feedback, 
including drafts of learning documents and technical tools, often with many rounds of discussions. Interviews 
with both SCALE and the donor suggest the relationship was effective and transparent. From the donor side, they 
felt there were efficient channels for them to inform SCALE on their priorities, which were often based on the 
priorities of the administration, as well as their engagement with INGOs, NGOs, and governments.
One key issue raised by respondents was whether SCALE focus areas adequately filled IP capacity gaps, or 
simply focused on general needs that may be important, but not the top priority. For example, one donor 
respondent suggested SCALE take a look at their consultation process, suggesting that IP agreement on priorities 
might be based on ‘some form of manufactured consent’. The respondent also mentioned that consultations may 
have been biased towards the limited number of organizations consulted (both through the TC and through 
discussions with IPs that have engaged with SCALE). They felt this makes it difficult to get to the heart of the 
real capacity needs of IPs. The SCALE team have also acknowledged that their conversations with IPs generally 
favor those who have chosen to have a relationship with SCALE. While this has led to these IPs receiving tailored 
support, the team understands that the support provided tends to favor those who need the resources SCALE 
already has in its toolkit, particularly the capacity strengthening training. They have questioned whether these 
resources are targeting key capacity gaps, or whether IPs see them as needs because this type of SCALE support 
already exists. Nevertheless, it is important to note that given limited resources, SCALE aimed to invest in 
resources that were likely to be demanded by multiple partners. Seen from this angle, SCALE was able to fill 
capacity gaps that were common among IPs overall through its main support activities, as well as a number of 
IPs’ prioritized gaps through additional ad hoc support. 
SCALE was able to pivot to external events quickly, responding well to the COVID pandemic and 
managing challenges related to the BHA merger.
One of the main external factors that SCALE adapted well to was COVID. They responded effectively in 
terms of continuing to provide support to meet the needs of the IPs. SCALE was able to recognize the specific 
needs coming out of the global pandemic and was able to adapt a number of resources to help IPs respond to the 
effects of COVID. This included webinars on how COVID has impacted small scale agroecological approaches 
and seed systems interventions, and how to mitigate these impacts and adapt.
SCALE was able to pivot how it implemented its activities, mainly by switching quickly and effectively to 
online modalities. While SCALE originally planned to provide ample in-person training to build better 
relationships and offer more tailored support to IPs, COVID meant that SCALE had to provide more remote 
support and training online. In many cases, this approach enabled SCALE to increase its reach. At the onset of 
COVID, SCALE was meant to run an in-person training in Madagascar, but was able to adapt quickly by putting 
together a program that included video, live chat and electronic documents. This material provided the basis for 
developing a larger online permagarden refresher course. The mentorship program also improved during this 
15 
time, as SCALE was able to engage more regularly with IPs, which strengthened relationships. For webinars and 
learning groups, respondents noted that more field team participants were able to attend because these events were 
online. IPs still preferred in-person events, but as COVID restrictions continue to decrease, respondents agree that 
there would be advantages of employing a mixture of both. For example, a lot of preparation work could be done 
in advance virtually, which would set up the events for a more productive in-person experience.
The other main external challenge was the USAID merger of FFP and OFDA into BHA. This did not impact 
the themes and types of activities SCALE could focus on. However, due to an increased focus on funding sources, 
it limited the types of IPs SCALE could provide tailored support to. For instance, while SCALE’s knowledge 
sharing events and tools/resources remained accessible to all partners regardless of funding, SCALE-funded 
capacity strengthening events were targeted only at Title II-funded partners. This limited SCALE’s engagement 
with emergency partners working in SCALE’s technical areas, who tended to be CDF11- or IDA12-funded rather 
than Title II. This challenge was difficult to adapt to, but did not significantly affect the program’s overall outputs. 
Eventually, SCALE was able to start receiving CDF funding to work with additional IPs, including RFSAs in 
Malawi, Mali and Uganda. 
EQ1.2 Staff structure: How appropriate and effective is SCALE’s organizational and staffing 
structure for the implementation of its work?
This evaluation question explores how SCALE’s staffing structure enabled or impeded the effectiveness of the 
program. It looks at the technical skills of the SCALE team and how these have affected its ability to meet IP 
needs. This includes evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of the current model of employing a permanent 
staff with specialized external consultants. This question includes an added focus on the design and management 
of the Technical Committee.
Stakeholders found the SCALE team to be effectively managed, with strong technical knowledge. RSFAs 
have found communication with the SCALE team to be frequent and appropriate to their needs.
IP respondents were impressed with the level of communication with the SCALE team. In particular, they 
noted that the SCALE team was quick to respond to any requests for engagement. The structure of 
communication was generally ad hoc and needs based, which worked well for IP staff. They had a number of key 
contact points, and often felt that they could freely ask for support and clarification on resources at any time. 
Naturally, those working with SCALE on more collaborative activities, including preparation of the case studies 
and organization of training and mentorships, had more regular contact with SCALE, which they appreciated and 
felt was adequate. This suggests that SCALE was effective at gauging the level of communication each IP 
desired. 
IP respondents were also impressed with the level of technical expertise of the SCALE team, both the 
permanent staff and the external consultants. The permanent staff brought strong communication, facilitation 
and program management skills to the Award, in addition to having strong technical backgrounds in agriculture 
and environmental sciences. For activities requiring more specialized knowledge and technical expertise, such as 
supporting economic analysis or follow-up guidance to specific training, IPs were satisfied with the support from 
SCALE’s external consultants. IPs found that if the permanent staff did not have an answer, they were adept at 
finding additional information or sourcing an expert. Some IP respondents brought up limitations of the SCALE 
team being able to provide specialized knowledge of adapting resources to specific contexts, but this was 
 
11 Community Development Fund 12 International Development Assistance account
16 
understood to be a challenge of having such a global program, and not due to lack of team technical knowledge. 
These challenges are discussed further in the next section on Relevance and Effectiveness.
There were mixed concerns about the level of language skills, particularly on French skills. Overall, the 
consensus was that the team managed well considering the small team size. Given that SCALE engaged with an 
extensive number of French-speaking countries, it is significant to note that respondents from these RFSAs found 
their engagement with SCALE satisfactory. Translated materials were appreciated, and verbal communication 
was handled well through translators, when necessary. Very few cited issues with language barriers. Other IP 
respondents noted the dominance of English for learning events and webinars, but understood that it is difficult to 
cater to all countries. Very few IPs were adamant that SCALE make their national language a priority, for both 
participatory events and written documents. Most are capable of dealing with translation themselves. For in 
person training events, IPs have noted that language barriers were solved by hiring local translators, or having the 
RFSA team translate to the rest of the team, which was easier to do in physical sessions compared to remote. 
SCALE’s staffing structure was appropriate given the budget and uncertain nature of programming. The 
diverse team provided flexibility and a broad range of experiences.
The mixture of permanent staff and external consultants proved to be effective in terms of efficient 
implementation. The small group of permanent staff, consisting of technical experts with a range of background 
in agriculture and livelihoods, provided consistency. The addition of long- and short-term consultants and experts 
from Mercy Corps offered flexibility, diverse thought and experience from other programs. There was the correct
balance of both kinds of personnel. Hiring technical consultants enabled the program to focus on IP’s changing 
needs as opposed to focusing on what permanent staff had expertise in. Furthermore, it was noted that due to the 
significant amount of effort needed for strategy and planning, having a majority of the permanent staff to cover a 
wide range of general expertise was optimal. 
The management of SCALE’s structure team was able to adjust over the duration of the program 
according to the best model to suit its activities. SCALE was able to establish a core team from the start and 
expand according to need. For example, a number of planned roles shifted, with new roles created and old roles 
removed, as the program continued. For example, the two Regional Facilitator roles were combined into one 
national staff member, an Operations Officer was included, and an additional role focused on seed systems was 
added, based on this new priority and additional funding relating to Integrated Seed Sector Development (ISSD) 
secured. Communication support was provided internally through internal operations and program assistance 
roles, and externally through IDEAL’s13 communication team and hired external consultants. As IDEAL works to 
support a number of FSSMs, this sometimes proved slow due to competing priorities.
Local expertise could have better facilitated SCALE’s support to IPs. Permanent staff were able to manage 
and implement the program’s core activities, while providing more general technical expertise, and long-term 
external consultants offered specialized expertise on specific focus areas. However, interviews with IPs show that 
they often required even more support with tailoring knowledge to their specific context and environments. IPs 
that felt SCALE was able to provide sufficient support in this regard often mentioned that SCALE provided 
follow-up visits to the field to support with the practical application of the training and connected IPs with local 
actors who could provide more context-specific advice. For example, one IP in Central Africa mentioned that it 
was an innovative idea to involve a local facilitator in their MMCA training course, which helped make the 
 
13 Funded by BHA, IDEAL (Implementer-led Design, Evidence, Analysis and Learning) addresses knowledge and capacity gaps of the food security 
and nutrition community. 
17 
content fit their more complicated context. This was particularly appreciated, as COVID meant that the training 
was remote.
The Technical Committee provided an important mechanism for technical knowledge sharing between 
agencies. However, members from IP organizations felt they could have benefitted more.
The TC proved to be successful in many ways. It met regularly every two months, with the aims of providing
technical input to guide SCALE activities; sharing technical information internally within the SCALE TC to 
leverage knowledge within the group; ensuring SCALE actions leverage implementing organization activities and 
future priorities; and providing a link between implementing communities and USAID/BHA. According to 
SCALE reporting, the TC provided useful opportunities for SCALE to discuss new learning resources that 
members could share within their organizations and networks, and to leverage resources and ideas from its 
members. For example, SCALE effectively sourced research proposals, case study ideas and behavior change 
methods from its members.
The TC was able to provide feedback on SCALE’s strategic direction, but there were limitations.
Perspectives from the TC FGD saw the meetings as a mechanism for SCALE to provide updates on their 
activities, rather than actively workshopping and validating ideas. SCALE staff also noted that TC member 
participation was inconsistent, and motivation of members varied. They were committed, but often very busy with 
their own work. 
TC members hoped meetings would provide opportunities for SCALE to provide updates on BHA 
priorities and expectations, and for BHA to learn from IPs. There were some limitations, as IP members were 
unclear on SCALE’s relationship with BHA, and what level of influence they had. Members appreciated that the 
TC provided a mechanism for IP experiences to be collected. However, they would like to see IP feedback passed 
on to BHA more regularly and systematically, even if this goes beyond the remit of the TC, and the purpose of 
SCALE. This is discussed further in EQ4.3. 
EQ1.3 Emergency partner engagement: How did the design, staffing and management of the 
Award affect its ability to engage with and meet the needs of BHA-funded emergency 
partners?
As the SCALE Award predominantly engaged with non-emergency programs, this evaluation question looks at 
internal and external factors that have affected the Award’s ability to support BHA-funded emergency partners. 
Limitations related to SCALE’s funding streams and approach restricted its ability to cater to BHA￾funded emergency partners, despite activities to understand emergency program needs. 
SCALE took many actions to understand how to work with emergency programs and what their specific 
needs were. They hired a consultant in Year 2 to support on a desk review on the agricultural programming in 
emergencies and to conduct a survey for emergency partners. It focused on implementation challenges that these 
partners face. This includes: a lack of timely, flexible funding for agriculture and NRM activities, fragility related 
to conflict and insecurity, capacity gaps, competing priorities and agroclimatic shocks and stresses. 
Nevertheless, certain legacies led to SCALE’s focus on non-emergency programs. While SCALE’s mandate 
has always included emergency programs, the program tended to favor non-emergency programs. This may be in 
part due to the focus on non-emergency programs under the TOPS program under FFP, which carried over to 
SCALE. Additionally, funding streams meant that SCALE was able to provide general knowledge sharing 
18
support to emergency programs, but tailored support required IDA funding, which SCALE did not receive. After 
the merger, the portfolio of IPs increased, which included more emergency programs coming from OFDA. 
However, funding restrictions persisted. SCALE continued to focus on Title 2 funding, rather than IDA and CDF 
funding, which most emergency programs receive.
SCALE staff had less experience working with emergency programs, and most of SCALE’s programming 
and approaches were tailored to non-emergency programs. Determining emergency program needs was
challenging for SCALE, as the TC was made up of primarily non-emergency actors. Given that there is typically 
one lead representative from each organization, this person was often someone with a background in non￾emergency programs. Logistically, there was no central repository of contact information for emergency 
programs. There were also less opportunities to be introduced to these programs through regular workshops, like 
the PCS workshops, for non-emergency programs.
Stakeholders had mixed perspectives on how suitable SCALE’s approach to agriculture, NRM and 
livelihoods is for emergency programs.
Due to the nature of emergency programs, some respondents felt that SCALE’s focus on resilience thinking 
and long-term sustainability made it less applicable for emergency programs. From this perspective, 
emergency programs focus on immediate outcomes and returning to pre-crisis conditions, as opposed to 
propelling people into the future. To these respondents, it is not possible to adapt non-emergency work for 
emergency interventions. Instead, there would need to be more robust activities and research specific to 
emergencies, rather than non-emergency settings. 
On the other hand, many respondents feel that there are activities that SCALE can focus on that are 
beneficial to both non-emergency and emergency programs. For example, seed systems interventions were
commonly mentioned as activities applicable to both. Other respondents see the need for both types of programs 
to meet in the middle. These respondents suggest that emergency programs should take a more long-term view,
including resilience design, and that non-emergency programs can benefit from interventions with more 
immediate outcomes.
These mixed perspectives were offered by stakeholders working on SCALE implementation (the SCALE team, 
donors, and Save the Children), as the evaluation did not conduct qualitative interviews with emergency 
programs.
Responses from emergency program staff suggest that budget and time were the biggest barriers to 
engaging with SCALE and applying SCALE knowledge.
While only a few emergency programs were reached (n=4), their responses to the online survey hint at 
certain differences in how they, and non-emergency programs, operate. These results were similar to 
SCALE’s emergency partner survey conducted in Year 2. Compared to non-emergency programs, the main 
barriers that limited their desire or ability to engage with SCALE were that the type of support activities did not 
match their needs (50% for emergency programs compared to 3% of non-emergency programs), the timing of the 
SCALE Award did not match their program timings (50% versus 9%), and their general lack of time (50% versus
17%). In terms of barriers to applying SCALE knowledge, all respondents cited external contextual factors 
(compared to 49% for non-emergency programs), which could include COVID, political factors or environmental 
factors, including natural disasters, which would be expected for emergency programs. Other key factors include 
budget availability (67% compared to 33%) and limited time available to apply new learning (67% compared to 
48%). In terms of outreach, most emergency programs heard about SCALE through their manager or colleagues, 
19 
and most felt the best way for SCALE to approach emergency programs was through email introductions, via
program leadership or workshops. 
Emergency programs have similar needs to non-emergency programs in terms of technical focus areas, and 
differences in their preference type of support activity. While noting the low sample size of emergency 
program respondents, similar to non-emergency program respondents found resilient agriculture to be most 
relevant to their work (75% for emergency programs, compared to 60% for non-emergency programs). They also 
found livelihoods and markets to be relevant (50% compared to 57%). Social behavior change (SBC) was not 
seen as relevant to emergency programs (0%), compared to non-emergency program respondents (46%). In 
contrast to non-emergency programs, emergency programs tended to prefer technical guides (75% compared to 
26%) and learning groups (50% compared to 9%), with low preference for capacity building training. This is 
potentially due to emergency programs having more time restrictions. 
III.b Relevance and Effectiveness: How effective was SCALE’s engagement with 
IPs and what were the impacts of its technical assistance?
The following three questions focus on the extent to which IPs were able to apply knowledge gained through 
SCALE into their work, and what additional benefits and impact it had on their organization’s agriculture, NRM 
and livelihoods programming and staff capacity. It will also look at the barriers they might have faced. 
EQ2.1 Technical relevance: How do IPs perceive the relevance and utility of the different 
types of support offered by SCALE?
This question focuses on the relevance and utility of the support offered by SCALE, the thematic focus of the 
support and the type of support activities provided. It focuses on whether IPs believe the support was tailored to 
their requests and needs, which technical focus areas were most useful, and remaining technical gaps and 
challenges IPs still face.
Survey results found that the types of resources and support SCALE offers met the needs of their 
agriculture, NRM and livelihoods work. Training manuals and training were found to be most effective. 
IPs found SCALE’s support to be relevant, particularly respondents from Central and Southern Africa. 
According to the online survey (n=40), 65% of IPs said SCALE’s support was ‘very much’ relevant to their 
agriculture, NRM and livelihoods needs. 33% said ‘somewhat’ relevant and 3% said ‘a little’. While sample sizes 
by region are low, it is useful to note that this trend is driven by high satisfaction from IPs in Central and Southern 
Africa (81% saying ‘very much’, n=26). In contrast, 40% respondents from East Africa said ‘very much’ and 60% 
said ‘somewhat’ (n=5). For West Africa IPs, all respondents said ‘somewhat’ (n=3) and in Asia, 60% said ‘very 
much’, 20% said ‘somewhat’ and 20% ‘a little’ (n=5). IPs with higher engagement, respondents who cited higher 
communication with SCALE, and respondents in agriculture and NRM roles were more likely to find SCALE 
support relevant to their needs. 
The most effective tools and support activities offered by SCALE according to IP survey respondents 
(n=40) were training manual and facilitator guides (53%), and training sessions. Under training, 43% found 
permagarden or resilience design (RD) to be one of the most effective tools, and 43% found the Make Me a 
Change Agent (MMCA) training to be one of the most effective. This naturally depended on the engagement level 
of the IPs. Those with higher engagement (who tended to participate in capacity training) felt the training was 
most effective. Those with medium engagement felt the webinars and CoPs were most effective, and those with 
little engagement preferred the technical guides and training manuals. As expected, agriculture and NRM staff 
20
respondents felt the permagarden and RD training and training manuals were most effective. SBC staff members 
preferred the MMCA training and training manuals, while IP leadership respondents felt that technical guides 
were most effective.
Unpacking this further with qualitative data, IPs' perceptions of the relevance and utility of SCALE 
support depends on their level of engagement, and therefore the type of services they received. 
IPs with low engagement with SCALE did not find support specific enough to their needs, often because 
they were not aware that further support was possible. Those with low engagement were RFSAs that only 
received learning documents and tools, or attended an occasional webinar. They typically have not received 
tailored support or additional explanatory sessions on specific topics. Interviews with these IPs suggest that they 
found these pieces of support relevant, but not specific enough to their particular context. Many added that this 
was because they were not aware that further support was possible or it was not the right time for them to receive 
tailored support. For example, one respondent said that they attended webinars, which they learned a lot from. 
However, since they were not implementing many agriculture activities at that point, it was not relevant for them 
to engage with SCALE. Another mentioned that they received MMCA material, which they found interesting, but 
they had not started engaging with field agents. Lastly, one mentioned participating in a number of webinars, 
through invitations from SCALE, but did not know they could approach SCALE to ask questions.
Those with higher levels of engagement appreciated that SCALE’s support was tailored to their needs. 
They tended to receive more extensive capacity building training, including on MMCA and on resilience design. 
For the most part, these IPs found the training to be relevant, especially as they tended to have one-on-one 
conversations and follow-up to help the programs adapt the training to their specific contexts. They were often 
provided with assistance in setting up monitoring systems to measure quality. This was especially the case when 
there were in-person field visits and when SCALE was able to hire additional consultants on their behalf.
IPs with medium engagement also found SCALE support very relevant, as they collaborated with SCALE 
on projects initiated by RFSAs themselves. While they may not have had as much contact time through 
extensive training support or long-term mentorship, these RFSAs worked with SCALE on research and learning 
pieces on topics they had chosen. This includes receiving specialized one-on-one support on case studies, research 
reports and evaluations on specific topics most relevant to their programs. One example of this was one IP who 
was asked by the donor to conduct economic analysis of their components’ links to the private sector. They asked 
SCALE for support with two analyses, one on the market development of para-veterinary services and one on 
developing sustainable farmers cooperatives. They found SCALE to be proactive, and had regular calls with the 
SCALE technical advisor to discuss objectives. They noted that SCALE was able to recommend a pragmatic
methodology to obtain the best results in the simplest way. Other examples include RFSAs who had opportunities 
to work with SCALE on a case study on their experience on using improved certified seeds, one who worked with 
SCALE to present their learning at a learning sharing events, and one that collaborated with SCALE on an 
evaluation of their agriculture information management system. These IPs appreciated the opportunity to receive 
support relevant to topics they were already working on.
IPs found resilient agriculture and livelihoods and markets to be the most relevant technical areas that 
SCALE provides support in, while gaps include support to overcome more localized challenges relating to 
these themes.
Of the technical areas SCALE provides services in, the most relevant for IPs according to the survey (n=40) 
are resilient agriculture (permagarden and RD) (61%) and livelihoods and markets (58%). This is followed 
by SBC (MMCA) (39%), seeds systems (26)%, climate services (18%) and multi-use water systems (15%). While 
21 
sample sizes are small, differences between regions may suggest that specific regions find certain areas are more 
relevant. IPs in Central and Southern Africa IPs found resilient agriculture, livelihoods and markets, and SBC to 
be most relevant (n=26). IPs in East Africa found livelihoods and markets and seed systems most relevant (n=5). 
IPs in West Africa found seed systems most relevant, followed by resilient agriculture, then livelihoods and 
markets. (n=3). IPs in Asia found resilient agriculture and livelihoods and markets most relevant (n=5). 
It is important to scrutinize to what extent SCALE was able to address IP capacity gaps. While the list 
above ranks the relevance of technical areas that SCALE offered support in, this might have been based more on 
what support IPs were likely to have received. Furthermore, it may be related to the depth of support that SCALE 
provided for the different areas. For example, seeds systems, climate services and multi-use water systems may 
have been ranked lower because they only became a focus later in the program. To try to assess what capacity 
gaps IPs had, independent of what SCALE was able to provide, the evaluation asked IP respondents open-ended 
questions about what further focus areas they would require technical assistance. (These areas will naturally 
overlap with SCALE’s existing support areas, as IPs might not know all types of SCALE resources that exist.) 
These focus areas include:
● Market systems development and livelihoods: value chain assessments, private sector engagement, 
access to finance, security (access to land, markets in fragile contexts), digital technology/applications in 
agriculture, governance 
● Climate challenges (and resilience agriculture): techniques to mitigate the effects of climate change, 
short-term responses (including in emergencies) to climate change, protection of natural resources, 
environmental compliance, permagarden adapted to climate context, early warning systems, drought and 
flood tolerant activities
● Water systems: irrigation and drainage, watershed management using soil and water conservation 
structures, small scale irrigation, rain water harvesting for irrigation
● Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: biofortification and seed enhancement for improved nutritional value 
● Pesticides: use of biopesticides, alternative pesticides, general pest and diseases management
● Seed systems
● Social behavior change
Thus, it is clear that SCALE technical areas have been covering IP capacity gaps through its broad coverage of 
topics relating to resilient agriculture and markets, seed systems and SBC. However, IPs tend to be in need of 
more specific and localized support related to these broader themes.
EQ2.2 Effectiveness/impact of capacity strengthening activities: To what degree do IPs feel 
they were able to apply the knowledge gained through SCALE’s capacity strengthening 
activities (eg. training, mentorship)? What benefits do IPs perceive from these activities?
This EQ looks at how effective SCALE’s capacity strengthening activities were, whether they resulted in IPs 
applying the knowledge and seeing benefits in their agriculture, NRM and livelihoods programming. It also looks 
at any barriers on the IP-side or from the SCALE implementation.
Based on the online survey, IPs found capacity strengthening activities very effective. They appreciated the 
technical relevance, technical rigor and practical nature of this support.
22
IPs felt that the capacity strengthening support they received from SCALE improved their ability to do 
their jobs. Personalized coaching and mentorship was most highly regarded by recipients, with 80% of in-person 
recipients and 71% of online recipients saying the service ‘very much’ improved their ability to do their jobs. 
Permagarden and RD training was next best received with 79% agreeing that it ‘very much’ improved their ability 
to do their jobs. Lastly, for the MMCA training, 69% of in-person recipients and 58% of online recipients said the 
service ‘very much’ improved their ability to do their jobs. It is clear that those who had received in-person 
capacity building services felt they could apply the knowledge learned better than those receiving online support. 
Given the limited data, it is difficult to attribute any trends across IP types.
The quality of capacity strengthening support was viewed highly. 90% of IPs said this support focused on 
relevant technical areas, and 80% said it had the right level of technical information. 73% said it was participatory 
and practical, and 70% said it included practical tools to help with applied learnings in their work. Only 53% of 
participants of both online and in-person capacity strengthening support said it was convenient to attend.
IPs receiving resilient agriculture training were able to integrate knowledge in their programming. They 
were especially successful when they received follow-up support and coaching from SCALE.
Qualitative evidence shows that IPs receiving resilient agriculture training were very likely to integrate 
concepts and knowledge in their programming. One IP respondent mentioned how permagarden was one part
of their programming that caused them difficulty operationally. After receiving SCALE training, they were able to 
adapt their strategy and develop quality control standards. Another said they incorporated ideas from the training 
into their implementation plans, as they received support during their Refine and Implement stage. This included 
incorporating RD approaches to adapt their water harvesting techniques and the use of tree planting. During 
implementation, one IP mentioned issues with making permagardens work in an area where the soil is arid, with 
problems of access to water. After receiving training from SCALE, they were able to develop new techniques that 
they could pass onto the community.
There was consensus that in-person and follow-up training was the most beneficial. This was because 
participants were able to observe the practical application of training, and field staff could be involved. 
Furthermore, those with more trouble applying SCALE training were those who attended regional training events, 
but did not receive enough localized support through follow-up visits from the training team. Other IPs had access 
to their own local technical experts, so while they appreciated SCALE being proactive, they felt they had 
sufficient capacity and specialized knowledge.
For the MMCA training, many IPs were able to apply knowledge and see immediate results. However, this 
depended on existing staff skill sets, interest and time.
All IPs appreciated the MMCA training and found it relevant, with many providing examples of how they 
incorporated these techniques into their facilitation processes. For example, one IP in Asia mentioned how it 
was useful to learn how to analyze farmer and market actor behaviors to design better facilitation tools to deliver 
their programs. Based on the MMCA training, they modified their tools, and through discussing their challenges 
with SCALE, further adapted their techniques. Another IP in East Africa mentioned that after the field team
implemented MMCA, they observed a better relationship between the community and the staff. They felt that the 
MMCA approach improved the way messages were delivered to the community. Another IP from 
Central/Southern Africa felt they were able to apply MMCA knowledge, because despite the training being 
remote due to COVID, SCALE was able to bring in a local facilitator so training would fit the context.
23 
A few of the IPs faced challenges with applying MMCA knowledge due to staff limitations. Some IPs 
mentioned that their technical teams did not have an interest in SBC, and others cited that their staff faced 
challenges passing on this training to the rest of the team, as this requires pedagogical competence that they did 
not have. One IP in Central/Southern Africa noted the MMCA training did not fit their way of working and that 
committing resources to adapt their SBC strategy to integrate new techniques was not a priority. Another IP in
Central/Southern Africa also mentioned that SCALE’s MMCA training did not match their SBC strategy, 
caveating that they already had a resident anthropologist expert with 25 years of experience on their behavior 
change team.
EQ2.3 Effectiveness/impact of resources/tools: To what degree did IPs use resources/tools 
developed by SCALE within the specific projects the award supported? What benefits do IPs 
perceive from these resources/tools?
This EQ looks at how effective SCALE resources/tools were, and whether they resulted in IPs applying the 
knowledge and seeing benefits in their agriculture, NRM and livelihoods programming. It also looks at any 
barriers on the IP-side or from the SCALE implementation.
Based on the online survey, most IPs felt SCALE learning documents and tools were useful and applicable 
to their work but could be more user-friendly and easy to access.
IPs were positive about being able to apply the knowledge from SCALE’s learning documents and 
technical tools. The majority of IP respondents (75%) accessed SCALE training manuals or facilitator guides. Of 
those respondents (n=30), 67% said they were able to apply knowledge from these sources ‘very much’, while 
33% said ‘somewhat’. Those most able to apply this knowledge were respondents who also received capacity 
strengthening training. Most likely, the type of training corresponded to the focus areas of the manuals and 
guides. 48% of IP respondents accessed technical guides. 53% of these respondents (n=19) said they were able to 
apply this knowledge ‘very much,’ while 47% said ‘somewhat’. 28% of IP respondents accessed learning briefs 
or impact assessments, with 45% of these respondents (n=11) able to apply knowledge from these sources ‘very 
much’ and 45% ‘somewhat’. 
The quality of SCALE’s tools and resources were viewed highly. 86% of IP respondents who used SCALE 
tools and resources (n=35) felt they focused on technical areas relevant to their needs. 69% felt they provided the 
right level of technical information, while 60% said they were user friendly and 54% said they were easy to 
access. IP respondents in leadership positions and those from IPs with higher engagement with SCALE found 
resources to be easier to access. This suggests that stakeholders often access documents by receiving them 
through emails or during other support activities directly from SCALE, rather than through the Food Security and 
Nutrition (FSN) website14. Responses from IPs with higher engagement with SCALE also found the resources to 
be more user-friendly, suggesting that users benefit more when they are complemented by explanations and 
guidance via other SCALE support activities. 
The most applied resources and tools were those associated with other SCALE support activities, 
particularly the SBC and resilient agriculture manuals and tools.
An open-ended question in the online survey provides some insight on the most beneficial learning 
document or tools. A quarter of IP respondents who accessed SCALE tools and resources mentioned 
 
14 Funded by USAID’s BHA, the FSN Network is a global community where food security practitioners can access and share resources, events, and 
opportunities as they work to improve the lives of the world’s most vulnerable. The FSN Network was originally launched under the USAID FFP￾funded TOPS Program.
24
MMCA/SBC training guides and supporting documents, including their checklists. Another quarter of 
respondents mentioned the permagarden manual and related technical guides. Other resources mentioned included 
guides on seed systems, research on the Hill Approach, and technical training guides in general. This trend is in 
line with download data from the FSN Network website with technical guides and manuals being the most 
downloaded resource or tool, even when accounting for release date. 15 This includes ‘MMCA: An SBC
Resource’ training guide (1020, Y3), ‘Farming as a Business Manual for Smallholders Farmers’ (886, Y2), 
‘Resilience Design in Smallholder Farming Systems Approach Guide’ (866, Y4), and ‘TOPS Permagarden 
Toolkit’ (810, Y4). 
Interviews with IPs provide many examples of IPs applying knowledge from training manuals, particularly 
when they received corresponding capacity strengthening training. For numerous IPs, manuals were 
important resources that allowed them to incorporate techniques into their activities. These documents provided 
key step-by-step information in a written form that they could adapt to their specific context and share with the 
rest of the team. They also appreciated the useful checklists, quality control sheets and other templates. Again, 
these tools were used more when accompanied with regular follow-up with SCALE to troubleshoot any 
challenges.
Beyond training manuals, IPs found case studies and other research reports useful for providing examples 
and validating their approaches. For example, one IP in Central Africa found the resources on seed systems 
useful for confirming the validity of the mechanism they used in their programs. Another IP in East Africa 
mentioned that they downloaded case studies with ‘before and after’ pictures that helped them gain confidence in 
their use of permagarden approaches.
Reasons for not accessing and applying SCALE resources include not having time to search through the 
FSN Network website and having sufficient expertise on their team.
IPs tend to prefer direct assistance from SCALE when seeking relevant resources and tools. As mentioned, 
many appreciated having learning documents and tools sent directly to them, especially as follow-up after 
participating in other SCALE activities. Indeed, IPs with less engagement with SCALE were aware of the FSN 
Network website and the resources on it, but simply did not have the chance to explore the site in detail. Those 
with a closer relationship with SCALE mentioned being able to reach out to the SCALE team when they faced 
challenges, and then be directed to specific resources on the FSN Network website. Of course, in some cases, IPs 
have been able to find resources through searching. For example, one IP in Central Africa mentioned finding the 
agroforestry technical guide online, and then translating it into the local language to use in their related training. 
They also mentioned finding the technical guide for financial planning of producer organizations useful, which 
they plan to adapt for their programming.
IPs who did not find SCALE resources to be the most useful were those who felt they already had strong 
technical experts on their teams. These experts would be able to provide or source necessary documents. For 
example, one respondent is a former Peace Corps staff and is able to access a wide collection of resources through 
that network.
 15 FSN Network website is not restricted only to BHA-funded program, but to the wider public. Download data presented here is from Year 4. 
SCALE resources on the FSN Network website include those developed by SCALE and those developed by or adapted from other sources.
25 
EQ2.4 Effectiveness/impact of sharing mechanisms: To what degree do IPs feel SCALE’s 
knowledge sharing platforms (e.g. communities of practice, webinars, learning groups) 
support them in their implementation? What benefits do IPs perceive from these platforms?
This EQ looks at how effective SCALE’s knowledge sharing platforms were, and whether they resulted in IPs 
applying the knowledge and seeing benefits in their agriculture, NRM and livelihoods programming. It also looks 
at any barriers on the IP-side or from the SCALE implementation.
Despite sharing events providing practical knowledge and focusing on relevant technical areas, based on 
the online survey, IPs were only ‘somewhat’ able to apply this knowledge into their work. 
IP respondents had mixed reactions to whether they were able to apply knowledge from sharing events. 
Webinars and learning groups were the most attended sharing events by IP respondents (n=40) at 50% and 45%, 
respectively. 28% of IP respondents attended the Francophone CoP, while 18% attended the Anglophone CoP. 
While sample sizes are small, overall, the majority of IP respondents said they were ‘somewhat’ able to apply the 
knowledge gained through participating in SCALE’s knowledge sharing platforms. 
IP respondents who participated in SCALE knowledge sharing events (n=33) were very positive about the 
quality of the sharing events. 82% said they provided practical knowledge that their programs could apply, and 
76% said it focused on relevant technical areas. In terms of how the events were run, 73% said they were 
organized and facilitated well, and 67% said they were participatory and engaging. Only 55% said it provided 
networking opportunities and only 48% said it was convenient to attend. 
IPs primarily found knowledge sharing platforms useful for hearing other perspectives, connecting with 
others and having specific techniques and resources explained to them.
In terms of technical focus areas, the sharing events that IPs found most beneficial include those related to 
climate change and resilient agriculture, market systems and seed systems. They also mentioned topics 
related to responding to COVID, including alternative livelihoods and financial inclusion. Respondents found 
these events to be effective platforms to learn best practices from programs of other countries and to get 
motivation to improve their own programming. IPs who presented their own work found the experience 
particularly beneficial, as they were able to get feedback from other participants to improve their program quality. 
There were a few examples of IPs applying knowledge learned from SCALE sharing events; however, 
many IPs faced challenges. Following a webinar on communication during COVID, one IP in Asia said they 
adapted their communication systems with beneficiaries, using various approaches shared by different countries. 
They started communicating with beneficiaries by phone and monitoring activities through weekly check-ins. 
This same IP incorporated learnings from a webinar on seeds systems and developed a seeds market system for 
farmers with links to private actors. For another IP in Southern Africa, a webinar on climate change led to them 
adopting more climate mitigation strategies in their programming. This included teaching farmers how to monitor 
rains, to adjust their crop schedules according to the climate and to adapt their production techniques. The main 
challenge preventing IPs from applying knowledge from sharing events related to participants not having the 
decision-making power to put what they learned into immediate practice. The other barrier was that sharing event 
topics would relate to their programming, but not be directly applicable, as by nature, these events are not tailored 
to individual IPs. Ones focused on general practices, including COVID mitigation or social behaviour change were 
applicable to a wide range of IPs. Other events that focused on more specialized techniques or case studies might have 
been useful to attend, even if knowledge was not directly applicable.
26 
Participants of knowledge sharing events would have preferred in-person events, longer sessions and 
greater opportunities for networking.
IPs found in-person events better for providing opportunities to network and learn from other people. 
While knowledge sharing platforms help IPs gain knowledge from other programs in similar and different 
contexts, regardless of the platform, most mentioned a preference for in-person events. This is because there is 
more time for informal conversations before and after the main event. While online events increased the number 
of people able to attend these events, some found that it was much harder for participants to stay fully engaged. 
At the same time, many respondents found the sessions too short. Many thought that one-hour sessions for 
webinars and CoP meetings goes by too quickly, with many questions still unanswered. Given the number of 
participants, the amount of experience that can be shared is immense; participants recommended that events could 
either be extended or have more break-out rooms. Similarly, one respondent mentioned that sharing events could 
involve more practical-based learning, including observation sessions, although this would only be feasible in￾person. Another respondent recommended incorporating learning from beyond the programs by bringing speakers 
representing perspectives of government stakeholders, private sectors actors and donors. 
Further networking opportunities would be highly appreciated by the IPs. With short online sessions, IP 
respondents felt there were not enough opportunities to meet other IP staff members for one-to-one conversations. 
While IPs are pleased with the topics of the knowledge sharing events, they often have specific challenges related 
to specific topics that they would like to learn from other projects. During the program, SCALE has responded to 
specific demands for additional learning groups and webinar topics, which IPs have appreciated.
III.c 3. Engagement efficiency: How effective was SCALE’s approach to 
outreach/engagement with IPs?
The following three questions look at the extent to which SCALE’s approach to building a relationship with IPs 
was effective. They look at SCALE’s initial outreach approach, the timing of its outreach, and how it managed the 
type and amount of engagement it had with different IPs. 
EQ3.1 Outreach approach: Looking at the approaches SCALE took to initiate 
engagement with IPs, what worked well and what could be improved to make this 
process more effective? 
This question looks at the efficiency of SCALE’s process to initiate a collaboration with IPs. It explores the ways 
IPs first hear about SCALE, whether it was clear how they could engage with SCALE, and whether they 
understood what resources and support they were able to receive from SCALE. It also looks at the perspective of 
the SCALE team, exploring what strategies they initially planned, how well they implemented them and what 
could be improved. 
The SCALE team felt they were able to leverage numerous channels to outreach to IPs, although they 
could have broadened their outreach to increase the diversity of their portfolio.
SCALE’s approach focused its outreach on IPs that were easiest to connect with and those most responsive, 
rather than aiming to engage with every single RFSA. According to the SCALE team, the main strategies for 
reaching out to IPs were through the PCS processes, which sometimes included introductions from BHA, and 
through joint introductions with other FSSMs, mainly PRO-WASH. Before PCS was awarded, SCALE initiated 
27
contact with IPs through direct emails and calls with program leadership. The SCALE team felt they engaged 
with a sufficient amount of IPs, which matched the level of effort they were able to provide, given the size of their 
team. However, some SCALE staff felt that the portfolio of IPs engaged was too narrow, and more effort could 
have been made to widen the portfolio and give all IPs an equal opportunity of receiving SCALE support.
Challenges on the SCALE-side include COVID restricting travel, which made all contact remote, and 
limited collaboration with local organizations to improve IP engagement. COVID made it more difficult for 
SCALE to make initial contact through informal conversations at events, and made it harder to build more lasting 
relationships. The team also planned to build better relationships with local organizations, including training 
institutions who could help SCALE build stronger relationships with IPs. These organizations could also have 
taken on a greater role in capacity strengthening, by being co-facilitators. They could continue providing lighter 
touch capacity building beyond training, and increase the ability of SCALE to reach more IPs in the country.
IPs were happy with the ways SCALE made first contact. However, there were a number of challenges for 
IPs to actually engage with SCALE support activities.
On the IP side, the online survey shows that IP respondents were primarily reached through informal 
channels, rather than through PCS-led workshops. This is likely due to the survey reaching respondents from 
a range of roles within IP organizations, who might not have participated in PCS-led events. As SCALE is meant 
to reach IP staff at all levels, it is important to note how different people learn about the Award. Overall, most IP 
survey respondents heard about SCALE through a direct email from SCALE (43%), or through word-of-mouth 
from their managers or colleagues (33%) (n=40). Few first heard about SCALE through the FSN Network website 
(10%), through the FSN Network newsletter (5%), and through the PCS-led R&I workshops (5%). IP leadership 
staff were the only ones to have learned about SCALE through the FSN Network, and Agriculture, NRM staff 
were the only ones to have learned about SCALE through PCS-led workshops. When asked about the best method 
for SCALE to reach partners, most respondents mentioned workshops and learning events (40%), direct email 
from SCALE (8%) and through reaching out to program leadership (25%). This suggests that SCALE’s strategy 
for making first contact through PCS-led workshops and other group events should be continued, but direct emails 
to initiate deeper engagement will be important.
Qualitative evidence confirmed that IPs first learned about SCALE and began to engage with SCALE 
through invitations to learning events. For an IP in Central Africa, this included being invited to attend a 
training through one of their sister programs, because they had similar programming. For another IP in Asia, 
SCALE reached out to the IP to join a learning group, and then when they participated, they were able to learn 
what support SCALE offered through related conversations. Others heard about SCALE through the newsletters, 
but this was not enough exposure to build a relationship.
In terms of actually engaging with SCALE support activities, there were a number of challenges according 
to the survey (n=40). 20% mentioned that they were not sure how to engage or access support from SCALE. 
18% said they were not sure what resources and support were available from SCALE, and 13% said the 
timing/duration did not match with the program’s timing. This matched comments from the qualitative interviews.
Qualitative interviews showed that limited contact time restricted IPs’ understanding of what SCALE 
offers, preventing them from engaging with SCALE for support. One respondent from an IP in Central Africa 
was introduced to SCALE through a PCS-workshop, but did not get a chance to see an introductory presentation. 
Therefore, they did not fully understand the scope of what support SCALE could provide. An IP respondent from 
Central America mentioned that the introduction to SCALE was sufficient, but they did not know what the next 
steps were to start engaging and receiving support from SCALE. Another IP from East Africa mentioned that 
28 
SCALE initiated contact with them by asking them to participate in a presentation of their work. However, it took 
several meetings with SCALE to understand how SCALE’s services could benefit them. Similarly, many IPs who 
heard about SCALE through PCS Inception or Culmination workshops did not lead to immediate engagements, as 
there was little opportunity for SCALE and the IPs to get to know each other to discuss how SCALE would be 
able to tailor its support to the IP..
EQ3.2 Outreach timing: At what points in the RFSA cycle was the outreach to IPs 
most and least relevant and effective, and why? 
This question looks at the timing of outreach to IPs to understand when the most useful time is to provide 
different types of support and why. This includes looking at SCALE’s engagement in the PCS-led Inception and 
Culmination workshops, which takes place in the first year of the RFSA cycle (i.e. Refine and Implement). 
Most IPs would like to be introduced to SCALE early on so activities can be planned in advance, but for 
activities to start during the R&I year of the RFSA cycle, after the Inception Workshop.
According to the survey (n=37), 22% of IP respondents were engaged during the inception phase (i.e., during the 
R&I phase, between the Inception and Culmination workshops), 30% at the beginning of implementation and 
46% during implementation. By comparing how these groups responded to the question asking whether the 
SCALE resources and support they received met their needs, 50% of those engaged at inception said ‘very much’ 
(n=8), 73% of those engaged at the beginning of implementation said ‘very much’ (n=11), and 47% of those 
engaged during program implementation said ‘very much’ (n=17). This suggests that IPs would prefer to start 
receiving SCALE support after the Inception workshop, during the R&I phase and immediately afterwards. 
IPs prefer enough time for planning even if activities start much later. According to many of the IP 
interviews, they appreciated receiving SCALE support throughout the RFSA cycle, however, they felt it would 
have been better to plan SCALE support from the start. This would have allowed IPs to work SCALE activities 
into their workplans and budgets. 
SCALE engagement can be useful throughout the whole RFSA cycle, with SCALE being able to provide 
various support at different stages.
While RFSAs were keen to build a relationship with SCALE early on in the RFSA cycle for planning 
reasons, the type of support required varies throughout the RFSAs cycle. As RFSAs have different gaps 
depending on their capacity, RFSAs require engagement at very different points. Respondents provided different 
suggestions for support based on the different points of the RFSA cycle:
● Pre-inception phase: as this phase is about understanding the terms of reference and less focused on 
technical aspects, there are less opportunities for SCALE support but introductions can be made. 
● Inception Workshop and immediately afterwards: Introductions to SCALE should be made to start 
building a relationship, while understanding that RFSAs will be overwhelmed at this point; SCALE can 
support by looking at gaps in evidence, and advising on where research would help and how to conduct 
it. Immediately following the Inception Workshop, SCALE can follow-up to start planning capacity 
strengthening activities and working activities into the workplans and budgets. 
● During R&I phase (1st year between Inception and Culmination workshops): SCALE can help with 
developing research questions, sharing best practices from other RFSAs, refining Scopes of Work and 
recruiting consultants; SCALE can start developing more detailed engagement strategies; SCALE can 
begin capacity strengthening activities with technical staff, such as resilient agriculture training.
29 
● Culmination workshop: SCALE can support in finalizing details in the workplan and strategies, and 
continue planning for support activities during program implementation. 
● Beginning of program implementation: SCALE can support further training, particularly MMCA 
training, and make field visits to tailor support. 
● During program implementation: SCALE can provide ad hoc support for specific challenges that arise; 
provide refresher training, on-going mentoring, and make additional field visits to provide monitoring 
support; SCALE can support with developing case studies to share during webinars and workshops; 
RFSAs can also participate in Community of Practice sessions.
● Close-out/end of program: SCALE can continue to support RFSAs in developing high level 
documentation to share program learnings, and any evaluation reporting requirements. 
SCALE made successful attempts to initiate relationships with IPs at different points of the RFSA cycles 
using different approaches.
PCS-led workshops provided a good mechanism to initiate contact with IPs early in the RFSA cycle, but 
adequate follow-up is necessary. As mentioned, a number of RFSAs first heard about SCALE through PCS-led 
Inception and Culmination workshops (even if other IP staff connected with SCALE later). While these 
workshops are key moments when RFSAs are gathered together at a scheduled time, it is also a difficult time for 
RFSAs. RFSAs felt that they were overwhelmed and had a number of other priorities during this time. This is 
likely the reason that some IPs introduced this way felt that they were not aware about what SCALE was able to 
provide. Successful engagements often come after follow-up emails and deeper one-to-one conversations about 
collaborating and setting up engagement plans. Two RFSA respondents have suggested there be a separate 
subsidiary event during these workshops, where all FSSMs could make an introduction. This way, RFSA staff can 
shift gears and focus their attention on ways various support mechanisms can provide support. 
For IPs which SCALE did not initiate contact with during the R&I period, SCALE successfully engaged 
with IPs during the implementation period through informal contact. As mentioned, direct emails worked 
well, particularly if it involved a collaboration, for example asking RFSAs to share learning in a webinar, learning 
group or CoP session. This provided more contact time that led to informal discussions about other ad hoc support 
that the RFSA needed. Especially when reaching out to RFSAs during program implementation, partnering with 
other FSSMs, for example PRO-WASH, was more efficient and allowed both parties to leverage each other's pre￾existing relationships, and to help avoid too many communication channels for RFSAs. 
EQ3.3 Engagement efficiency: Were IPs satisfied with their level of engagement with 
SCALE? Did IPs feel their level of engagement was appropriate given what they 
wanted to achieve by receiving support from SCALE, and why? 
IPs have varying levels of engagement with the SCALE Award across the four knowledge areas, with some only 
receiving resources and tools from the FSN Network website or attending a single training event, to those 
receiving intentional follow-up training. As such, this question focuses on whether the ad hoc style of engagement 
worked well, and how it could be improved. This includes looking at the effectiveness of engagement plans. The 
aim of the question is not to look at whether more engagement leads to more goals being achieved. Rather, it is to 
understand what level of engagement might be effective for different IPs (with different expectations and needs), 
and the most effective way to determine this.
IPs are most satisfied when they are fully aware of what relationship with SCALE is possible and are able 
to make requests and receive tailored support.
30 
Survey data suggests a correlation between the level of satisfaction with SCALE and how much contact 
they had. Overall, 57% of IP respondents were ‘very much’ satisfied with the level of support they received from 
SCALE, while 30% were ‘somewhat’ satisfied. Disaggregating by frequency of contact with SCALE hints that 
this might be correlated with their level of satisfaction. 75% of IP respondents with regular contact felt SCALE 
resources and support met their needs (n=8), compared to 60% of respondents with occasional contact (n=15) and 
43% of respondents with limited contact (n=14). Qualitative interviews can provide some nuance, as correlation 
does not imply a causal relationship. 
While it may seem that more engagement correlates with satisfaction, it is more likely that those who were 
able to discuss their needs with SCALE, and have those needs met, were more satisfied. This is generally the 
case for IPs with high engagement compared to those with low engagement. IPs with lower engagement tended to 
say that they only attended an occasional webinar or learning event, or only received a few learning documents, 
not because they did not need additional support, but because they were not aware of the full range of support that 
SCALE provided. Those with higher engagement simply had a different experience; they appreciated how 
proactive SCALE was and tended to be satisfied with the amount of support they received. Those with medium 
engagement had mixed reactions depending on how much one-on-one support they received. Those less satisfied 
tend to be those receiving training, but not enough tailored support to adapt the training to their context and 
capacities. Those more satisfied often participated in collaboration with SCALE on case studies or presentations; 
they therefore received contextualized support, even if their engagement overall with SCALE was not extensive.
Ultimately, it is not about the amount of support provided, but that it was intentional and personalized, 
even if the support is more ad hoc. Engagement plans were helpful for those who were willing to develop a plan 
and to build in time in their workplans to engage in support activities. However, these are not necessarily best for 
all IPs. Layering activities were found to be useful as support activities tend to complement each other. However, 
it is most effective when they are led by IP needs. As mentioned, a key factor for successful engagement was 
initiating contact between SCALE and the IP as early as possible, and ensuring that IPs are fully aware of what 
support activities are available. 
Where possible and based on IP desires, SCALE incorporated a ‘co-design’ model to ensure support met 
the IP’s core capacity needs.
SCALE used formal engagement plans and informal phone and email discussions to collaborate on what 
SCALE support would look like. While SCALE aims to get at the heart of each IP’s needs by tailoring and 
providing follow-up to its standard support package, and by providing ad hoc support by request, SCALE also 
employed a more formal engagement method with some IPs. Engagement plans were established with IPs 
interested in setting up a longer-term relationship with SCALE to collaborate on the support they would receive. 
This would start through initial introductions followed by numerous discussions and emails to understand their 
specific contexts and to tease out their capacity gaps and support needs. This ensured that IPs were receiving a 
support package that was most suited to their needs, often including specialized mentorship programs. Plans were 
adjusted through regular feedback as implementation was underway. 
III.d Sustainability: How have IPs institutionalized the resources and technical tools 
provided by SCALE? What influence did SCALE have on BHA policies, standards, 
or program quality?
The final question looks at the extent to which SCALE’s resources and knowledge will continue beyond the life 
of the Award. It looks at how IPs have institutionalized resources and tools, and whether capacity strengthening 
31 
activities have been replicated and cascaded down to program beneficiaries. Lastly, it looks at how SCALE has 
influenced wider BHA policies and standards. 
EQ4.1 Scalability of training: How, and at what level of quality/consistency, are IPs 
replicating/cascading learning from SCALE training within their programs?
This question focuses on IR3 (Knowledge Application). The aim is to understand whether SCALE training has 
scaled both within BHA-funded programs that SCALE has supported (i.e., training was “cascaded” within the 
program) and beyond these direct programs (i.e., training or training resources were shared with other programs). 
It also looks at the barriers and enablers to scaling, and strategies for long-term sustainability of SCALE’s training 
content. 
IPs were able to replicate a range of SCALE training, especially resilient agriculture and MMCA training, 
both to fellow staff members and, eventually, program beneficiaries.
According to the survey, capacity building recipients (n=30) cascaded training within their program, and 
passed on knowledge beyond their program. 87% of respondents have been able to pass on knowledge received 
from SCALE’s capacity strengthening activities to their staff. 63% of respondents passed on knowledge to 
community members and program participants, and 20% have trained colleagues outside of their organization. 7% 
(one respondent) did not pass on training. While sample sizes are not large, there is a noticeable pattern of IPs 
respondents from RFSAs with higher engagement with SCALE, and those with more regular contact with SCALE 
being more likely to pass on training to their staff and to program beneficiaries. The one respondent who did not 
pass on training to anyone was from an IP in West Africa with limited SCALE engagement. 
In terms of what training IPs passed on, half of respondents said resilient agriculture training (14 of 28 
respondents), and a large portion said MMCA training (11 of 28 respondents). Other respondents mentioned 
training related to agriculture and market systems, use of organic manures, irrigation and seed systems. In 
qualitative interviews, when asked about replicating and cascading training, most respondents spoke about 
passing on resilient agriculture training to their staff members who then trained program beneficiaries. A few 
qualitative respondents mentioned cascading MMCA training within their programs.
IPs provided many examples of how they were able to cascade SCALE resilient agriculture training, 
although some experienced challenges such as maintaining quality. 
Around half of IPs interviewed shared experiences of replicating resilient agriculture training from 
SCALE, in a ToT manner. For a few IPs, SCALE training participants were able to adapt the knowledge to the 
context of the communities they work in and pass on techniques to the community. For example, with one IP in 
East Africa, they were able to replicate training in communities to support mothers to develop permagardens in 
their backyards to diversify the range of food available for consumption. With a target of 700 households, they 
have already reached 450 households who have built permagardens at home. 
Many respondents were able to cascade training down multiple levels. For example, one IP in Central Africa 
supervises more than 2100 households with activities related to the Hill approach. The respondent was trained by 
SCALE on resilient agriculture techniques. They then regularly train a series of over 60 trainers made up of 
students from the local university, who then train households at the community level on these techniques. Another 
IP in East Africa said they had a small group of 30 staff receive training from SCALE; those 30 staff were able to 
train 208 field managers who then trained the community members. 
32 
With this multi-level training approach, the main challenge raised was the loss of knowledge and quality of 
training at each level. The same IP in East Africa discovered through field visits that there was a lack of 
uniformity with the training and inconsistent retention of the information. They are planning to have refresher 
sessions to overcome this problem. Another IP mentioned a challenge of staff retention, i.e., high-level trainers 
leaving which puts a strain on the pool of people able to train those who eventually work with communities. The 
training manuals and monitoring tools provided by SCALE have helped IPs overcome both challenges. 
There were some examples of SCALE resilient agriculture training being passed on to other programs and 
to other local stakeholders. One IP respondent shared that they trained colleagues on another, non-BHA-funded 
program, as the head of that program wanted their team to take on specific resilience agriculture approaches 
because of how well it worked on the respondent’s program. In other cases, IPs invited government actors, 
including representatives of the agriculture department, to participate in their cascaded training. This was done so 
they could be familiar with and supportive of resilient agriculture.
In addition to SCALE’s approach to encourage its training activities to be passed on, SCALE has taken 
some steps to ensure that its content continues to be accessed and used beyond the program. 
While the replication of SCALE capacity strengthening activities has been successful, there will always be 
external factors affecting the long-term sustainability of this knowledge. SCALE has begun to create digital 
versions of their training, using videos from their remote training to create, which is a step towards making their 
training content accessible and useful once the program ends. SCALE also planned to focus on institutionalizing 
tools and training programs into communities by involving local training centers and local consultants in their 
capacity strengthening activities. However, this has been limited due to travel restrictions due to COVID. 
EQ4.2 Sustainability of resources/tools: To what degree do IPs believe they will continue to 
use, share and institutionalize the resources/tools developed by SCALE after the end of 
SCALE and beyond the specific projects the two awards supported?
Focusing on the resources and tools coming from IR1 (Knowledge Capture) and IR2 (Knowledge Generation), 
this question explores what resources will have continued use, how they will be shared, and with whom. It looks 
at the factors affecting IPs’ ability to institutionalize these resources and tools, and to share them outside of their 
specific project. It also looks at how the knowledge management platforms (mainly the FSN Network) used by 
SCALE might enable continued access to and uptake of these resources. 
Respondents are very likely to continue using SCALE resources and tools beyond the program, as they 
have been internalized into their practices and library of tools.
Survey data suggests that SCALE resources, as well as SCALE knowledge overall, will continue to be used 
beyond the program. 71% of IP respondents who have accessed SCALE resources and tools (n=35) are ‘very 
much’ likely to continue using and accessing them after the program ends, while 23% said ‘somewhat’ likely. 
Those who have had more regular contact with SCALE and respondents who are part of their program’s 
agriculture and NRM staff are more likely to use and access SCALE resources beyond the SCALE program. 
There were similar results when respondents were asked if they were likely to continue using knowledge and 
learnings gained from SCALE after the SCALE Award and their program ends. 70% said ‘very much’ and 24% 
said ‘somewhat’ (n=40).
Many respondents mentioned that SCALE resources and tools have been integrated into their training 
manuals and that the documents are already part of their library of tools. According to the survey, around 
33
half of IP respondents have said they have internalized SCALE resources and support into program policies and 
practices. This is higher for IPs with higher engagement with SCALE, particularly IPs in Central and Southern 
Africa, and West Africa. Many IPs have incorporated resilient agriculture checklists and other quality monitoring 
tools into their programs, and adapted their permagarden interventions based on SCALE manuals and technical 
guides.
According to the survey, there were some barriers to IPs using SCALE resources and tools beyond the 
program (n=37). 49% of IP respondents mentioned ‘limited time available’ as a barrier, and 44% mentioned 
‘budget availability’. Beyond that, a few respondents said they were limited by ‘lack of team willingness to adapt 
work’ (22%), ‘lack of manager’s willingness to adapt work’ (11%) and ‘donor restrictions’ (3%).
Sharing of resources and tools is widespread and mainly includes documents on resilient agriculture and
SBC. IP staff are using resources and tools beyond their current BHA-funded program.
The online survey provides evidence that IPs are sharing resources and tools. 94% of IP respondents have 
shared resources with colleagues, 49% with community members and 31% with colleagues outside of their 
organizations (n=35). Respondents from IPs with higher engagement with SCALE are more likely to share 
resources, which suggests that providing multiple forms of support activities encourages the passing on of 
knowledge. As expected, program leadership and SBC staff members are more likely to pass on resources and 
tools, compared to agriculture, NRM and livelihoods staff members. This is likely due to program leaders often 
not being the end user of resources and tools, and because SBC tools are applicable to multiple departments. 
The main tools that were shared with others were the training manuals and technical guides relating to 
permagardens and resilient agriculture, and MMCA and SBC. These were both mentioned by about half of 
respondents (n=35). Other resources shared include documents related to seed systems (3 respondents), 
livelihoods and markets and agroforestry.
IPs also provided examples of using SCALE resources outside of their current context. For example, one 
respondent from an IP in East Africa said that SCALE resources and tools have been useful for their proposals for 
other projects, as these tools have helped them refine their strategies and workplans. Another IP respondent works 
closely with other IPs and the local government, and through sharing training materials believes SCALE 
resources and tools have reached a wide network of people. Others respondents have noted that because they have 
internalized the knowledge gained from SCALE, they will keep using it throughout their career.
SCALE resources and tools can continue to be accessed and used beyond the program, if they are 
continually held on an online platform.
Logistically, SCALE resources and tools can continue being useful and shared around, as they are easily shared 
and passed around through email. SCALE resources are also held on the FSN Network website, where new users 
can gain access beyond the program, as long as the information stays relevant, and the FSN Network and its 
website continues to exist. Many of SCALE training resources will continue to be used beyond the program, if 
they are associated with any online training courses they produce.
34 
EQ4.3 BHA Learning Application: How did SCALE inform (and facilitate IP reflections and 
feedback towards) advancements or changes to USAID/BHA policies, standards, guidance?
This question focuses on institutional change in USAID/BHA due to SCALE, either through knowledge acquired 
through program activities, or through SCALE acting as a conduit for IPs to direct reflections and sharing to 
USAID/BHA.
As SCALE is well-placed to understand issues that country programs face and donor interest, SCALE has 
been able to provide feedback to BHA about IP needs and influence BHA priorities.
While some respondents claim that BHA priorities are driven more by wider politics, at the more subtle 
level, BHA has welcomed and relied on SCALE feedback to influence their decision-making. One key 
example brought up by SCALE and donor respondents is the influence of SCALE’s seed system security 
assessment consultation and summary document. SCALE held a series of consultations with IPs and BHA staff on 
seed system assessments and developed a summary document with clear recommendations for SCALE, BHA and 
IPs. This process also led to a complementary learning group – with support and engagement from BHA – to help 
IPs navigate resources, share experiences and understand the importance of performing seed system assessments. 
According to one of the donor respondents, SCALE has been useful in providing on-the-ground 
information about how IPs are implementing their programming. While this is not part of their official 
mandate, informally, SCALE is well-placed to inform BHA. This respondent mentioned that before BHA can 
update their guidelines, they need to have discussions with partners, and reference new evidence that shows better 
outcomes or a faster way of implementation. They noted that evidence would often come from support 
mechanisms like SCALE. This donor respondent was particularly impressed with the speed at which SCALE can 
produce learning documents and to have them ready for BHA and partners to use, citing the example of research 
on the fertilizer supply chain crisis.
Other FSSMs also feel that support mechanisms are well-placed to advocate for BHA to focus priorities on 
key issues. For example, they mentioned that together with SCALE, they were able to engage BHA in 
conversations related to climate information systems and multiple use water systems. Often, this would put 
USAID ahead of the curve on these issues. 
From the perspective of individual IPs, SCALE might not need to act as a conduit for them to provide 
feedback to BHA. Many feel that SCALE’s role is primarily to provide technical support, and that IPs are 
capable of navigating the process of providing feedback to BHA themselves. Some IPs said that they are not sure 
what relationship the SCALE team has with USAID. Other IP respondents who are more vocal about the 
challenges of BHA protocols and procedures have expressed desire for SCALE to report difficulties to BHA, as 
SCALE understands the realities on the ground. 
A final topic regarding SCALE’s wider role in the sector, is whether SCALE should reach out to global and 
regional organizations to source learnings and to participate in these wider policy discussions. As IPs are 
mainly concerned with the specific technical assistance that concerns their program, they did not have a strong 
opinion on this. From the perspective of one of the donor respondents, SCALE should think more about the wider 
systems affecting agriculture, NRM and livelihoods, including the social and political systems in which 
agriculture is implemented. However, the respondent suggests that it is more important for SCALE to participate 
in these dialogues at the local level, rather than the global.
35
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
This final section provides conclusions and recommendations for each of the four evaluation areas.
Program design
Overall, SCALE was found to be correctly designed to meet its goal, through its adaptive management 
approach, effective staff structure and mechanisms to determine what support IPs need.
Programmatic decisions, including thematic priorities and the type of support activities, were made through 
formal discussions with IPs and the donor, for example, through the Technical Committee. More importantly, 
SCALE had discussions with the wider community via roundtables, learning events, and informal ad hoc 
channels, such as emails and mentorship discussions. This model was supported by a quick-to-respond and 
technically strong staff who had a positive relationship with the donor. SCALE’s staffing structure consisted of a 
small team of permanent staff and a number of external consultants, which was appropriate given the budget and 
uncertain nature of SCALE’s programming. The diverse team provided flexibility and diverse thought, which also
helped SCALE respond to external challenges. However, limitations relating to SCALE’s funding streams and 
approach restricted its ability to cater to BHA-funded emergency partners.
While this model has worked well for SCALE, there are opportunities to be more comprehensive in its approach 
to learning about IP needs, and to better leverage relationships and knowledge from the Technical Committee, the 
wider IP portfolio, as well as local consultants. One key threat to the effectiveness of SCALE’s program design 
includes low participation of stakeholders during the Technical Committees and other consultations. As SCALE 
begins to build deeper relationships with individual IPs, another threat is that it becomes more challenging for 
SCALE to balance wide engagement with numerous ad hoc requests.
Recommendations:
● Continue the current adaptive model focused on prioritizing activities to IP needs. Activities can 
continue to target support that is applicable to a wide spread of IPs, with tailored follow-up and additional 
ad-hoc activities based by request. Common support packages should be reviewed regularly to ensure 
they are still widely applicable, while learnings from ad hoc support should turn into publicly available 
resources where relevant;
● Collect perspectives from a wider pool of IP representation through annual/bi-annual focus group 
discussions with groups not fully represented on the TC, including emergency IPs, smaller IP 
organizations, and IPs from less covered regions. Without increasing TC membership too much, SCALE 
should consider widening IP representation to include additional voices that represent these 
unrepresented groups. Learnings from these sessions should inform SCALE’s standard support activities, 
helping it balance its efforts of providing both common and ad hoc resources;
● Consider setting up a centralized platform (or shared GoogleDrive) for TC members to keep track 
of action points, to share documents, and to discuss and provide feedback on new program strategies, 
outside of bi-monthly meetings. This would help provide alternative ways for stakeholders to participate; 
● Prioritize engagement with regional consultants to be on-call who can make more frequent field 
visits, provide more context-specific support and can support with language barriers. SCALE should keep 
its staff structure consisting of both permanent staff and external consultants with a range of agriculture￾related expertise to implement most of the programming; 
36
● Ensure adequate communications support, either in-house or shared support with other FSSMs to 
produce quality outreach platforms (i.e., newsletters) and graphics, and to support the management of 
learning documents, including translations, and the development of online learning courses;
● Develop an approach to working with emergency programs early in the program, in terms of adapting 
existing long-term strategy tools, or developing new guides for short-term responses to emergencies. A 
separate specialized set of introductory materials and presentations should be made specifically for 
emergency programs.
Relevance and Effectiveness
SCALE effectively filled IP capacity gaps by providing standard support activities to address common IP 
needs, and ad hoc support on request to fill specialized needs. IPs provided many examples of how they 
were able to apply SCALE knowledge.
IP respondents found the types of resources and support SCALE provided relevant and useful to the needs of their 
agriculture, NRM and livelihoods work, particularly SCALE’s resilient agriculture and MMCA trainings. IPs 
receiving resilient agriculture training were able to integrate knowledge in their programming and were especially 
successful when they received follow-up support and coaching. For the MMCA training, IPs were able to apply 
knowledge and notice immediate results; however, this depended on existing staff skill sets, interest and time. IPs 
felt SCALE learning documents and tools were useful and applicable to their work. The most applied resources 
and tools were those associated with other SCALE support activities, particularly the SBC and resilient 
agriculture manuals and tools. Knowledge sharing events might not have always been directly applicable to all 
IPs; nevertheless, IPs found it useful to hear other perspectives, connect with others and have specific techniques 
and resources explained to them.
SCALE has the opportunity to further contextualize its support to meet individual IP support needs, which can be 
bolstered through deeper collaborations with local consultants and organizations. SCALE also has the 
opportunity to increase learning and sharing among IPs by providing space for IPs to speak informally. Key 
threats to SCALE providing relevant and effective support include (1) IPs having reductions in time and resources 
to integrate SCALE support into their workplans, (2) major shifts in IP needs that are more challenging for 
SCALE to provide, and (3) establishment of new BHA-funded FSSMs that limit IPs’ ability to engage with 
SCALE.
Recommendations:
● Continue to focus training topics on areas that can benefit a wide range of IPs, while ensuring 
sufficient follow-up and support to adapt techniques to their specific contexts. Continue to provide ad￾hoc support by request to fill additional IP capacity gaps;
● Prioritize the co-facilitation of training with local consultants, to ensure material is fully adapted to 
the local context and to leverage expertise in region-specific techniques. This includes the localization of 
training manuals, for example through regional guidance in the appendices;
● Develop a directory of SCALE learning documents and tools that provides descriptions and links to 
all SCALE resources, so IP staff do not have to search through the FSN Network website for documents. 
This could be in a regularly updated PDF, page on the FSN Network website, or a Google Doc;
● Consider adding a comment section on the FSN Network website for each learning documents and 
recorded webinars, for RFSAs and other users to share their experiences adapting resources and any 
challenges they might have faced;
37
● Facilitate more in-person knowledge sharing events to facilitate more networking opportunities 
through informal conversations; Consider holding longer Q&A discussions at the end of knowledge 
sharing events, where participants can drop off if they need to, but those who are more engaged can 
continue the conversation and even exchange contact information.
Engagement efficiency
SCALE built a strong relationship with a high number of IPs; although, the focus tended to be those most 
responsive, and not necessarily those most in need.
SCALE successfully reached out to IPs at the start of the RFSA cycle, through introductions at PCS-led Inception 
workshops and follow-up afterwards. SCALE was also able to engage IPs during their implementation phase by 
initiating collaborations on case studies and webinar presentations. IPs agree that SCALE support is useful 
throughout various points in the RFSA cycle, although early planning would be helpful. While there is some 
correlation between the amount of support received and satisfaction with SCALE support, the key trend is that IPs 
are more satisfied when they are fully aware of SCALE’s support activities, have made intentional choices on 
what support suits them best, and feel that the support has been tailored to their needs. It was clear that many IPs 
with capacity gaps were not aware of the support they could receive from SCALE.
There are many opportunities for SCALE to improve its engagement strategy with IPs by taking a more 
comprehensive approach, which would help ensure that IPs in most need are aware of SCALE support activities. 
There is also an opportunity to work more with other FSSMs to pool efforts. A key threat to SCALE effectively 
engaging with IPs includes the increase in environmental and political disruptions, which could increase the need 
for SCALE support but limit the time and resources of IP teams. Procedural challenges can also be threats, 
including funding restrictions and eliminations of useful platforms that SCALE can use to make introductions to 
IPs (such as the PCS workshops).
Recommendations:
● Take a comprehensive approach to making contact with IPs, aiming for all IPs to at least be aware of 
SCALE and what resources and support it can offer. This can include a RFSA tracker to track whether 
various contact attempts have been made with each RFSA at various points of the RFSA cycle. This can 
also be incorporated into the program’s results framework. While the aim is not to force a relationship, it 
is important to ensure all RFSAs are able to make an informed choice as to whether they want to engage 
with SCALE;
● Provide full information of SCALE’s support activities on the FSN Network page for SCALE. This 
should include a full list of available training, knowledge sharing groups, knowledge sharing events and a 
directory of SCALE’s learning resources, including documents and recorded webinar links). There 
should also be a downloadable introductory presentation and a contact box for IPs to make inquiries;
● Continue to explore methods of providing asynchronous support to IPs, in order to provide 
flexibility for IPs to engage with SCALE, especially those with limited ability to participate in time￾specific events. This includes developing more pre-recorded materials, such as e-learning modules;
● Continue making first contact with IPs at PCS-led workshops (with follow-up afterwards), and 
through direct contact. Continue reaching out by proposing collaborations with IPs to develop case￾studies and make learning event presentations. Engagement plans can be offered if IPs are interested, but 
at a minimum, all IPs should be aware that SCALE is able to provide ad-hoc support as needed.
38
Sustainability
SCALE’s resources and support are being institutionalized into IP activities (and donor practices). They 
have taken efforts to ensure that the quality of knowledge is maintained and that its resources are 
accessible and used beyond the program.
Sharing of resources and tools is very widespread, particularly documents on resilient agriculture and SBC. IPs 
were also able to replicate SCALE capacity strengthening support, especially resilient agriculture and MMCA 
training. Many IPs cascaded training down a number of levels, primarily to fellow staff members and then 
program beneficiaries. Some IPs provided examples of passing training to people outside of their programs. In 
terms of long-term sustainability, SCALE has been producing e-learning content to ensure its content can 
continue beyond the program. SCALE is well-placed to understand the issues that IPs are facing, and has been 
providing their findings to BHA, which has influenced BHA priorities and procedures.
There is opportunity for SCALE to further disseminate its resources to a wider pool of practitioners, in a way that 
requires limited SCALE facilitation. This would support its material being used beyond the program. There are 
also opportunities to leverage the knowledge and capacity of local actors to help build lasting support for IPs. 
There would be a threat to sustainability if the FSN Network is not funded in the future, as there would no longer 
be a central platform on which all SCALE resources can be accessed. Furthermore, SCALE’s sustainability could 
be jeopardized if there are not enough local actors willing and with the capacity to collaborate with SCALE.
Recommendations:
● Prioritize co-facilitations with local training centers and local consultants who can continue to use 
and pass on SCALE training material. Encourage local actors to take ownership of training documents to 
adapt tools to their contexts;
● Continue investing in e-learning video modules, primarily to provide trainers with refresher materials, 
to prevent drops in training quality as knowledge is cascaded down. These modules can also be shared 
widely to local training centers and other online learning platforms, in case funding for the FSN Network 
website ends;
● Cross-post SCALE resources on other relevant learning platforms, as a way to reach more potential 
users and as a redundancy tactic in case the FSN Network website closes; 
● Continue acting as an informal conduit for collecting IP feedback on BHA processes, through its 
regular engagement with IPs. Consider formalizing this process by making this an agenda point 
annually/bi-annually at meetings, both between SCALE and the BHA, and during TC meetings. Consider 
partnering with other FSSMs, including PCS, to hold specific consultations with IPs about their 
challenges implementing BHA-funded programs.
Recommendations for USAID
To assist SCALE in implementing it programming effectively and efficiently, recommendations have been 
suggested for USAID:
● Continue investing in SCALE to support IPs in their agriculture, NRM and livelihood programming, 
given the effectiveness and impact the Award has provided to these programs and the capacity gaps they 
are filling;
39
● Continue to facilitate collaboration among FSSMs, through IDEAL and other methods, to leverage 
economies of scale, and to limit the number introductions that are made to IPs. Consider having an FSSM 
coordinator to be an initial contact point for IPs to learn about all the FSSMs;
● Support in coordinating shared resources among FSSMs, again, through IDEAL or other 
mechanisms, to provide a shared platform to provide necessary information, including contact details for
all RFSAs and emergency programs, and a database of country-specific consultants and training centers. 
Consider setting up an online learning platform for e-learning courses, if multiple FSSMs are planning to 
invest in these courses;
● Provide support in encouraging IPs to engage with SCALE, by promoting FSSMs more throughout 
the RFSA application process. IPs should be provided with introductory materials on all FSSMs at the 
start of the program. Introductory presentations should become a standard formalized part of the RFSA 
process, for example, at the first PCS workshop;
● Continue to welcome and use SCALE, and other FSSMs, as a mechanism for obtaining IP 
feedback on BHA policies and practices. Consider formalizing this by having annual workshops with 
FSSMs to discuss IP feedback, or by having this be a regular agenda item during SCALE/USAID 
meetings.
40 
V. Annexes
V.a Scope of Work
Hiring Organization: Mercy Corps Global
Location: Remote
Estimated number of days: 70-80 working days 
1. Background and Context
The Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment (SCALE) Award is a capacity strengthening, 
knowledge sharing and learning initiative funded by USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA). SCALE works to 
strengthen the impact, sustainability and scalability of BHA-funded agriculture, natural resource management, and off￾farm/non-farm livelihood activities in both emergency and non-emergency contexts. Implemented by Mercy Corps in 
collaboration with Save the Children, SCALE partners with food security implementers to capture, generate, apply and share 
knowledge to foster more resilient agricultural systems and enhance income opportunities for the world’s most vulnerable.
SCALE is currently entering its fifth and final year of project implementation. This Scope of Work (SoW) provides the 
framework for the final evaluation consultant. The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess specific aspects of the relevance, 
utility, effectiveness, sustainability, and performance of the SCALE Award. The evaluation will also generate recommendations 
for future food security support mechanisms and other capacity strengthening and learning activities. Given how closely SCALE
has worked with the Save the Children-led food security support mechanism Practices, Research and Operations in Water, 
Sanitation and Hygiene (PRO-WASH), it is anticipated that the consultant will also work closely with the PRO-WASH 
evaluators (see scope of work here) to coordinate and to undertake some joint stakeholder consultations and components of the 
desk review.
2. Objectives and Scope of Evaluation 
As this is the final year of the SCALE Award, we are seeking a review of the outcomes of the SCALE Award while 
simultaneously gathering and analyzing information about the interest and needs of implementing partners for future agriculture, 
NRM and/or livelihoods-related support. The results of the evaluation will be used to inform the design of future USAID/BHA￾funded capacity strengthening, knowledge sharing and learning initiatives. Below is a list of learning questions the SCALE 
Award would like to explore; final learning questions for the evaluation will be agreed between SCALE and the external 
consultant.
Learning Questions
Award Design: Was SCALE designed correctly to meet its goal?
● How did the technical design of the award and the level of flexibility affect SCALE’s ability to respond to 
implementing partner (IP) and donor needs, collaborate with IPs, and adapt to external circumstances (e.g., COVID￾19 pandemic, Food for Peace/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance merger)? 
o (Probing): What have been the favorable or impeding factors related to the design and management of the 
award that have affected the Award’s ability to meet its objectives? 
● How appropriate and effective is SCALE’s organizational and staffing structure for the implementation of our work?
o (Probing): How effective was the design, composition and management of the Technical Committee? How 
could this be improved?
● How did the design, staffing and management of the Award affect its ability to engage with and meet the needs of 
BHA-funded emergency partners? 
Outreach to Implementing Partners: How effective was SCALE’s approach to outreach? 
● At what points in the RFSA cycle was outreach to implementing partners most and least relevant and effective? Why?
41 
● How effective was SCALE’s outreach as part of the Program Cycle Support (PCS) Inception and Culmination 
workshops? 
o (Probing): How can this be improved?
Implementing Partner (IP) Engagement: How effective was SCALE’s engagement with IPs and what were the impacts of its 
technical assistance?
● How do IPs perceive the relevance, utility and quality of the different types of support offered by SCALE (e.g technical 
guides, learning briefs, coaching/mentorship, in-person trainings, remote/online trainings, technical knowledge 
sharing events, webinars, and communities of practice)?
o (Probing): To what extent do IPs perceive that SCALE tailored priorities to their requests/needs? 
o (Probing): Which technical focus areas were most useful? 
o (Probing): What remaining technical gaps/existing challenges related to agriculture, NRM and alternative 
livelihoods have not been met through SCALE learning and research?
● To what degree did implementing partners use resources/tools developed by SCALE (e.g. technical guides, facilitator 
manuals and online training packages) within the specific projects the two awards supported?
o (Probing): How easy was it for partners to find and access resources/tools? 
o (Probing): What are the barriers/enablers to implementing partners using the resources/tools? 
● How, and at what level of quality/consistency, are implementing partners replicating/cascading learning from SCALE 
trainings within their programs (e.g., Make Me a Change Agent, Permagardens, and Resilience Design in Smallholder 
Farming Systems)? 
o (Probing): What are the barriers/enablers to implementing partners cascading these trainings?
o (Probing): To what extent does layering SCALE engagements (e.g. coaching/mentoring with in-person or 
remote training) contribute to implementing partners being able to replicate/cascade learning?
● How do IPs perceive the utility of SCALE's knowledge sharing platforms (e.g. communities of practice, webinars, 
learning groups)?
o (Probing): In what ways do these platforms support IPs in their implementation?
o (Probing): How could they be improved?
● Looking at three different kinds of engagement with IPs (i.e., different requests from partners and different 
levels/intensity of engagement from SCALE), what worked well and what could be improved to make the 
engagements more effective at reaching the agreed upon objectives?
o Lighter engagement: a single training event with limited post-training support
o Medium engagement: a training event with intentional follow-up from SCALE on progress but no 
mentorship program, plus engagement in remote community of practice 
o Heavy engagement: a training event with post-training mentorship program, follow-up technical coaching 
visit and engagement in remote community of practice
Institutionalization: How have IPs institutionalized the resources/technical tools developed by SCALE? 
● To what degree did implementing partners institutionalize into their organizations the resources/tools developed by 
SCALE beyond the specific projects the two awards supported?
o (Probing): What are the barriers/enablers to implementing partners institutionalizing the resources/tools?
● To what degree do partners believe they will continue to use and share the resources/tools developed by SCALE
after the end of SCALE?
o (Probing): Which resources? 
o (Probing): How will they be used or shared, and with whom? 
o (Probing): What are the barriers to continued use and sharing? 
o (Probing): To what extent will the knowledge management platforms used by SCALE ensure sustainable 
access to and uptake of their respective resources?
BHA Engagement: What influence did SCALE have on BHA policies, standards, or program quality?
o How did the awards inform advancements or changes to USAID/BHA policies, standards, guidance?
42
3. Evaluation Design and Methods
The external consultant will work closely with the SCALE team. The SCALE team will work with the evaluation lead (external 
consultant) to clearly define the scope and role of the evaluation team members during the evaluation’s inception phase.
It is expected the consultant will first conduct a desk review (see Annex A) and interview select SCALE team members to 
inform the final methodology. The final evaluation is expected to utilize qualitative methods and secondary quantitative data. 
SCALE will provide the evaluation team with full access to monitoring data and award documentation. Detailed methodologies 
and sample sizes for the evaluation will be agreed between SCALE and the external consultant.
Sources of existing activity information include 
● Desk Review (Annex A)
● SCALE webpage 
● Quantitative survey data that SCALE can make available as part of the desk review (such as pre/post-tests, training 
evaluations, etc.).
Potential stakeholders to consult/interview 
● SCALE staff (~7 people)
● USAID/BHA Activity Manager, Award Agreement Officer, and other technical staff (~5 people)
● Interviews with a select number of BHA implementing partners, determined in close collaboration with 
SCALE/PRO-WASH (~7 interviews)
● Interviews or focus group discussion with staff from other food security support mechanisms (e.g. PRO-WASH, 
IDEAL, REAL) (~3 discussions)
● Focus group discussions with two regional Communities of Practice and one Technical Committee
○ Follow up interviews with a select number of IPs from the communities of practice & from the Technical 
Committee (~5 interviews)
4. Activities and Deliverables 
● Kick-off meeting online
● Inception report with a work plan timeline, evaluation approach (methodology, methods and sample sizes, and 
complete set of evaluation questions as agreed upon with BHA and SCALE) and analysis plan 
● Desk review of relevant literature including quarterly reports, end of training reports, and post-training monitoring 
reports (See Annex A) , 
● Survey instruments
● Online survey of key stakeholders (e.g. SCALE Technical Committee members, USAID, implementing partners). 
● Online interviews with program staff, SCALE Technical Committee members, USAID, implementing partners 
(from different levels of leadership, different geographies, and different levels of engagement with SCALE), and 
other food security support mechanisms. 
● Draft 1.0 of evaluation report, including raw data sets as appendices (e.g. qualitative matrices used for analysis, 
translation of data / responses collected if in French).
● SCALE will review this draft, after which the firm will update as needed ahead of the stakeholder briefings. 
● Draft 2.0 of evaluation report, incorporating SCALE feedback.
● Internal and external briefing on evaluation findings, including a briefing with USAID
● Draft 3.0 of evaluation report following USAID and SCALE review, provided back to SCALE for final review.. 
● Final evaluation report, following final review of Draft 3.0
● Online learning workshop (not to exceed half a day) + summary page of key takeaways to 
○ Disseminate findings and recommendations from the evaluation;
○ Review in-depth the key lessons and their implications for future RFSAs and support mechanisms--what 
did we learn from SCALE’s capacity strengthening activities and how can it be improved? 
○ Discuss evaluation findings and facilitate a dialogue that captures stakeholder input, thoughts, and ideas on 
the technical approach used to achieve Award results as presented in the evaluation. 
○ SCALE: Capture specific, and actionable next steps that could be used to inform future agriculture, NRM 
and off/non-farm livelihoods capacity strengthening, knowledge sharing, and learning support mechanisms 
43
5. Report Content
● Cover Page, List of Acronyms
● Table of Contents 
● Executive Summary (2 to 3 page stand alone document) summarizing the key results and recommendations of the 
report. The Executive Summary should include: major lessons learned; maximum of two paragraphs describing the 
program, summary of targets and intended outcomes; areas of meaningful under or over achievement. 
● Methodology: sampling method including strengths and weaknesses of method used, inclusion of stakeholders and 
staff, rough schedule of activities, description of any statistical analysis undertaken, including justification and 
software package used. The discussion of any random sampling used should include details on how the random 
respondents were identified and invited to participate. This section should also address constraints and limitations of 
the evaluation process and rigor, and a detailed description of data collection techniques used throughout the 
evaluation.
● Results: Results should be organized according to the evaluation learning question categories outlined in Section 2 
and/or by the SCALE program’s interim results (IRs). Organization of results will be agreed upon in discussion with 
SCALE. 
● Synthesis, Recommendations and Lessons Learned: This is space for the evaluation team to make concrete 
recommendations for current or future project improvements/changes, pull out organization lessons learned, and 
reflect on data and results. Everything presented in this section must be directly linked back to the information 
presented in the Results section of the report, rather than present any new information. Recommendations that are 
not directly tied to Results can be included in an Evaluator Comments section for the report.
● Annexes: data collection instruments in English and translations; list of stakeholder groups with number and type of 
interactions; SOW, qualitative protocols developed and used, other relevant documentation such as data sets as
agreed upon with SCALE. 
6. Estimated Timeline: 
Month Activity 
February 2022 Consultant start-up and inception Report
March and April 2022 Desk review, stakeholder interviews
May 2022 Data Analysis and Report Writing 
June 2022 Draft report + briefings
July 2022 Final report and learning workshops 
7. Required Competencies 
● Hands-on experience leading evaluations of global support mechanisms for international development activities 
● Experience with USAID Food for Peace and/or USAID BHA food security programming 
● Minimum of 15 years’ experience with evaluation design, implementation, and analysis of development and 
emergency programs, including those focused on providing technical assistance, capacity strengthening and 
coordination, etc.
● Technical expertise in evaluation methods 
● Cultural sensitivity
● Desirable: French language skills to conduct interviews with francophone stakeholders and review programmatic 
documents that are in French
8. Proposal Requirements 
MER-MSA firms are eligible to apply. 
● Proposal must include the following: 
○ Concept Note Template document including:
■ Proposed approach (not a full methodology) and proposed timeline
■ Budget (including a breakdown of expected LOE and cost per deliverable) 
● Description of the individual(s) and/or firm and their relevant experience (maximum 4 pages)
44
● Proposed team structure, maximum 2 pages (and CVs of all team members - no more than 2 pages each, attached to 
Concept Note template)
Please submit complete proposals by February 1, 2022 at 5:00pm Eastern Time.
45 
V.b Instruments
V.b.i KII Guide - Donor (USAID/BHA)
Key Informant Interview Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment (SCALE) 
Award
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent name:
Respondent organization:
Respondent position:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello, [name], thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Your participation in the interview is completely voluntary, and you may stop the interview at any time. If you agree to be 
interviewed, we will make written notes of your responses, which will not be discussed or shared with any programme staff. 
Your name will not appear in connection to any information you give us. 
This interview should take between 30 and 60 minutes. Are you willing to participate? 
A. Introduction
1 Can you first briefly describe your role in managing/supporting the SCALE Award?
[Note: The AOE and Activity Manager ‘manage’ the SCALE Award, and BHA technical staff provide 
technical feedback on SCALE resources and tools and engage in some of the learning groups.]
B. Program design - the extent to which the program’s design, staff and management enabled SCALE to meet its goals
2 (1.1) Based on your understanding, did the programmatic structure and adaptability of the SCALE Award 
enable it to respond to BHA-funded program needs? How about the needs and requests of USAID/BHA? 
● Was the programmatic structure (i.e., knowledge capture, generation, application and sharing) appropriate
for supporting BHA-funded program needs?
46 
● What are your views on SCALE’s adaptive management strategy (i.e., the regular review of its strategic 
direction)? Do you think this supported SCALE’s ability to meet BHA-funded program needs?
3 (1.1) Based on your understanding, how did the management of the SCALE Award support its ability to adapt 
to external circumstances? 
● Can you provide examples of external factors that have affected the program’s implementation (eg. 
COVID, FFP/OFDA merger) and how SCALE responded to those? 
4 (1.2) How appropriate is SCALE’s organizational and staffing structure for the implementation of the 
program?
● Can you provide examples of how the staffing structure enabled successes? How about examples of how 
it may have hindered progress? 
● Does the team have the right technical skills? Was there anything missing? (What are the advantages and 
disadvantages of SCALE’s model of employing external consultants versus having more technical 
members directly on the SCALE staff?)
● Did the location and language skills of the SCALE team work well? Were there any issues related to the 
geography of the team? 
● How effective was the design and management of the Technical Committee (in terms of adapting 
strategic direction to meet BHA-funded program needs)? How could it have been improved?
C. Effectiveness/Impact/Sustainability – how effective and impactful SCALE’s engagement with IPs was and how 
support has been institutionalized
5 (2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4/4.1/4.2) Based on your understanding, did BHA-funded programs find SCALE support useful 
and were they able to apply the knowledge gained? (This includes the training, resources/tools and knowledge 
sharing platforms)
● In your opinion, which technical focus areas were most useful to BHA-funded programs? Are there still 
major gaps?
● What evidence (including anecdotal evidence) have you seen of SCALE support leading to BHA-funded 
programs improving the implementation of their agriculture/NRM programming?
● In your opinion, will SCALE benefits be sustained in the long-term? (Do you think BHA-funded 
programs will continue to use SCALE knowledge once the program ends?
D. Engagement Efficiency – how effective SCALE’s approach to engaging with IPs was
6 (3.1/3.2) We would now like to discuss if you have any thoughts about the efficiency of how the SCALE 
Award engaged with BHA-funded programs. Based on your understanding, what worked well and what can be 
improved with how SCALE initiated engagement with BHA-funded programs?
● Based on your understanding, what strategies did SCALE use to reach out to BHA-funded programs? 
How well have these strategies worked and what can be improved?
● What do you think is the most useful time (within the RFSA cycle) for SCALE to reach out to BHA￾funded programs?
● Based on your understanding, how effective was SCALE’s outreach as part of the Program Cycle Support 
(PCS) Inception and Culmination workshops?
7 (1.3) Why do you think SCALE engaged with a small proportion of emergency BHA-funded programs?
● What aspect of the program (i.e., design, staffing or management) limited its ability to engage with 
emergency BHA-funded programs? What would need to change?
● How are the needs of emergency BHA-funded programs different from non-emergency ones? Is SCALE 
able to cater to these needs?
8 (4.3) How has SCALE activities contributed to changes to USAID/BHA policies and standards?
● Have any of the resources or tools developed by SCALE informed any BHA changes? In what ways has 
the SCALE team actively engaged with BHA to advance their practices?
● In what ways has SCALE facilitated reflections and feedback from BHA-funded programs to influence 
BHA practices?
47 
Close out
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time?
V.b.ii KII Guide - Program staff (SCALE Award Team)
Key Informant Interview Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment 
(SCALE) Award
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent name:
Respondent organization:
Respondent position:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello, [name], thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Your participation in the interview is completely voluntary, and you may stop the interview at any time. If you agree to be 
interviewed, we will make written notes of your responses, which will not be discussed or shared with any programme staff. 
Your name will not appear in connection to any information you give us. 
This interview should take between 45 and 90 minutes. Are you willing to participate? 
A. Introduction
1 Can you first briefly describe your role in implementing the SCALE Award?
B. Program design - the extent to which the program’s design, staff and management enabled SCALE to meet its goals
2 (1.1) How did the programmatic structure and flexibility of the SCALE Award affect its ability to respond 
to BHA-funded program needs? How about the donor’s needs? 
● What mechanisms were used to understand and determine BHA-funded program and donor needs, and 
how successful were they?
● What are your views on SCALE’s adaptive management strategy (i.e., the regular review of its strategic 
direction)? Do you think this supported SCALE’s ability to meet BHA-funded program needs?
48 
● Was the programmatic structure (i.e., knowledge capture, generation, application and sharing) appropriate
for supporting BHA-funded program needs?
● Can you provide examples of how the flexibility of the program allowed it to adapt to external factors that 
have affected the program’s implementation (eg. COVID, FFP/OFDA merger)?
3 (1.2) How appropriate is SCALE’s organizational and staffing structure for the implementation of the 
program?
● Can you provide examples of how the staffing structure led to enabled successes? How about examples of 
how it may have hindered progress? 
● Does the team have the right technical skills? Was there anything missing? (Was the model of employing 
external consultants better than having technical members directly on the SCALE staff?)
● Did the location and language skills of the SCALE team work well? Were there any issues related to the 
geography of the team?
● How effective was the design and management of the Technical Committee (in terms of adapting 
strategic direction to meet BHA-funded program needs)? How could it have been improved?
C. Effectiveness/Impact/Sustainability – how effective and impactful SCALE’s engagement with IPs was and how 
support has been institutionalized
4 (2.1) From the SCALE team’s perspective, how well was the program able to tailor its support to the needs
and requests of BHA-funded programs?
● To what extent has SCALE support been tailored to BHA-funded program requests and/or needs?
● In your opinion, which technical focus areas were most useful? 
● What remaining technical gaps/existing challenges exist for the BHA-funded programs?
5 (2.2/2.3/2.4) Based on your understanding, how effective and impactful has SCALE support been to BHA￾funded programs?
● Do you think BHA-funded programs have been able to apply the knowledge gained through SCALE’s 
capacity strengthening activities, and what factors affected this? Which activities have been most 
successful and why? What factors affected the roll-out of these activities, and what could be improved?
● To what extent have BHA-funded programs been using the resources/tools developed by SCALE? What 
barriers and enablers are there to BHA-funded programs using these resources/tools?
● In what ways have SCALE’s knowledge sharing platforms (eg. communities of practice, webinars, 
learning groups) supported BHA-funded programs to implement their activities? What reflections and 
feedback from BHA-funded programs have you received?
6 (4.1/4.2) How well have BHA-funded programs been able to institutionalize the support they received from 
SCALE?
● Based on your understanding, how well have BHA-funded programs been able to replicate and cascade 
training support from SCALE into their programs? How has the level of engagement with SCALE 
impacted whether IPs have been able to institutionalize training? (ie. light engagement vs. heavy 
engagement)
● What evidence do you have that BHA-funded programs will continue to use, share and institutionalize the 
resources and tools developed by SCALE after the end of SCALE? (Which resources tend to be 
continually used? What are the barriers and enablers involved?)
D. Efficiency – how effective SCALE’s approach to outreach/engagement with IPs was
7 (3.1) Looking at the approach SCALE to initiating engagement with BHA-funded programs, what worked 
well and what could be improved to make this process more effective?
● How do most BHA-funded programs first hear about SCALE? How much do BHA-funded programs tend 
to know about the SCALE Award before they engage with SCALE? Are they aware of what types of 
support SCALE provides?
● What strategies do you use to reach out to BHA-funded programs? How well have these strategies 
worked and what can be improved?
● What barriers do BHA-funded programs face that hinder them from engaging with SCALE?
49 
8 (3.2) At what points within the RFSA cycle was outreach to BHA-funded programs most and least relevant 
and effective?
● What type of support might you provide to BHA-funded programs at different points in their 
implementation process?
● What do you think is the most useful time for SCALE to reach out to BHA-funded programs?
● How effective was SCALE’s outreach as part of the Program Cycle Support (PCS) Inception and 
Culmination workshops?
9 (3.3) Thinking about the different types of engagement IPs have had with SCALE, as well as the different 
objectives IPs have in engaging with SCALE, can you provide some examples of where IPs have met their 
objectives and ones where they did not (and what level of engagement they had)?
Note: Engagement could involve receiving a single resource/tool or attending a single training event, to more 
intentional engagement, including post-training support or mentorship, or technical coaching visits.
● What worked well when developing engagement plans to ensure the level and type of engagement 
matches the objectives of the IPs?
● Are there examples of the IPs with very limited engagement, but have found the support to be 
instrumental to their program implementation? Are there examples where too much engagement might 
have hindered the IPs’ progress?
10 (1.3) What aspect of the program (ie. design, staffing or management) limited its ability to engage with 
emergency BHA-funded programs? 
● Have there been attempts to reach out to emergency BHA-funded programs? Why were they not so 
successful? 
● What would need to change about the program for it to better engage with emergency BHA-funded 
programs?
● How are the needs of emergency BHA-funded programs different? Is SCALE able to cater to these 
needs?
11 (4.3) How has SCALE activities contributed to changes to USAID/BHA policies and standards?
● Has any of the resources or tools developed by SCALE informed any BHA changes? In what ways has 
the SCALE team actively engaged with BHA to advance their practices?
● In what ways has SCALE facilitated reflections and feedback from BHA-funded programs to influence 
BHA practices?
Close out
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time
V.b.iii KII Guide - Implementing Partners (RFSAs)
Key Informant Interview Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment 
(SCALE) Award
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent name:
50 
Key Informant Interview Guide
Respondent organization:
Respondent position:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello, [name], thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Your participation in the interview is completely voluntary, and you may stop the interview at any time. If you agree to be 
interviewed, we will make written notes of your responses, which will not be discussed or shared with any programme staff. 
Your name will not appear in connection to any information you give us. 
This interview should take between 45 and 75 minutes. Are you willing to participate? 
A. Introduction
1 Can you first briefly describe the BHA-funded program you work with and what your role is?
2 Can you describe what type of support your program has received from SCALE (ie. resources/tools, training, 
or participating in the knowledge sharing platforms)?
B. Effectiveness/Impact/Sustainability – how effective and impactful SCALE’s engagement with IPs was and how 
support has been institutionalized
3 (2.1) Based on your experience, how well was the SCALE Award able to tailor its support to your needs?
● Which of SCALE’s technical focus areas were most useful to you?
● What remaining technical gaps/existing challenges do you still have?
● Were you able to communicate what your technical needs were to the SCALE team? Could this have 
been improved?
4 (2.2/4.1) (If applicable, based on Q2) How effective were the capacity strengthening activities (ie. training 
support) you received by SCALE?
● Was your BHA-funded program able to apply the knowledge received from SCALE training and 
mentorship? Can you provide examples? Were there any barriers? 
● What kind of impact did the training have on your program’s work?
● [Scalability] Have you been able to replicate training within your program? Have you shared or replicated 
this knowledge with organizations outside of your program? Have you faced any barriers when 
attempting to do this?
5 (2.3/4.2) (If applicable, based on Q2) Have the resources and tools developed by SCALE been useful to your 
RFSA?
● What resources/tools were most useful? Can you provide examples of how you have used them? What 
other resources/tools do your RFSAs still need? 
● How easy was it for you to use these resources/tools (for example, if they were user-friendly, and 
provided the appropriate level of technical information)?
● How easy was it for you to find and access resources and tools (for example, through the FSN Network)? 
Are there better channels?
51 
● Did you share the resources with anyone in your program or organization?
● [Sustainability] Will you continue to use and share the resources and tools developed by SCALE after the 
end of the program? How so, or why not? Are there any barriers?
6 (2.4) How useful have SCALE’s knowledge sharing platforms been to your RFSA? (Platforms include 
communities of practice, webinars, learning groups)
● In what way do these platforms support your RFSA’s program implementation? Can you provide some 
examples? 
● How could these platforms be improved?
7 (3.3) Overall, how satisfied are you with the type of engagement and the level of engagement you had with 
SCALE? 
● Do you feel that the support you received from SCALE met your expectations and your objectives for
engaging with SCALE?
C. Efficiency – how effective SCALE’s approach to engaging with the IPs was
8 (3.1) How did you first engage with the SCALE Award? (Did SCALE reach out to you first, and if so, 
how?)
● What did you know about SCALE before you first engaged with SCALE? Were you aware of what 
resources and support you were able to receive from SCALE?
● Were there any barriers to your program engaging with the SCALE Award?
● How do you think SCALE can improve their strategy of initiating outreach to BHA-funded programs?
9 (3.2) Based on your experience, at what points within the RFSA cycle is engagement with the SCALE Award 
the most and least useful?
● What type(s) of support do you think SCALE should provide to RFSAs at different points in their 
implementation process?
● What do you think is the most useful time for SCALE to reach out to RFSAs?
● (If applicable) How effective was SCALE’s outreach as part of the Program Cycle Support (PCS) 
Inception and Culmination workshops?
10 (1.2) Is SCALE’s staffing structure appropriate for providing support to BHA-funded programs? (Is the 
staffing structure organized in a way that allows it to best provide support to BHA-funded programs?)
● Who was your main contact person(s) with the SCALE Award? Were you satisfied with the level of 
communication?
● Did you face any barriers in terms of working with the SCALE staff? Do you have any suggestions for 
how SCALE’s staffing structure could be improved?
11 (4.3) Has the SCALE Award been able to facilitate any feedback or reflections you have to USAID/BHA to 
help them improve their policies and standard?
● What mechanisms/platforms are in place for SCALE to facilitate your feedback to USAID/BHA?
● Is there a need for SCALE to act as a facilitator for your feedback to USAID/BHA?
Close out
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time?
V.b.iv KII Guide - Other stakeholders (Save the Children)
Key Informant Interview Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment 
(SCALE) Award
52 
Key Informant Interview Guide
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent name:
Respondent organization:
Respondent position:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello all, thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Your participation in the interview is completely voluntary, and you may stop the interview at any time. If you agree to be 
interviewed, we will make written notes of your responses, which will not be discussed or shared with any programme staff. 
Your name will not appear in connection to any information you give us. 
This interview should take between 30 and 60 minutes. Are you willing to participate? 
A. Introduction
1 Can you first briefly tell me your role, and what your involvement in the SCALE Award is?
B. Program design - the extent to which the program’s design, staff and management enabled SCALE to meet its goals
2 (1.1) Based on your understanding, did the programmatic structure and adaptability of the SCALE Award 
enable it to respond to BHA-funded program needs? How about the needs and requests of USAID/BHA? 
● Was the programmatic structure (i.e., knowledge capture, generation, application and sharing) appropriate
for supporting BHA-funded program needs?
● What are your views on SCALE’s adaptive management strategy (i.e., the regular review of its strategic 
direction)? Do you think this supported SCALE’s ability to meet BHA-funded program needs?
3 (1.1) Based on your understanding, how did the management of the SCALE Award support its ability to adapt 
to external circumstances? 
● Can you provide examples of external factors that have affected the program’s implementation (eg. 
COVID, FFP/OFDA merger) and how SCALE responded to those? 
4 (1.2) How appropriate is SCALE’s organizational and staffing structure for the implementation of the 
program?
● Can you provide examples of how the staffing structure led to enabled successes? How about examples of 
how it may have hindered progress?
53 
● Does the team have the right technical skills? Was there anything missing? (Was the model of employing 
external consultants better than having technical members directly on the SCALE staff?)
● Did the location and language skills of the SCALE team work well? Were there any issues related to the 
geography of the team?
● How effective was the design and management of the Technical Committee (in terms of adapting 
strategic direction to meet BHA-funded program needs)? How could it have been improved?
C. Effectiveness/Impact/Sustainability – how effective and impactful SCALE’s engagement with IPs was and how 
support has been institutionalized
5 (2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4/4.1/4.2) Based on your understanding, did BHA-funded programs find SCALE support useful 
and were they able to apply the knowledge gained? Will SCALE support be institutionalized by the 
programs? (This includes the training, resources/tools and knowledge sharing platforms)
● In your opinion, which technical focus areas were most useful to BHA-funded programs? Are there still 
major gaps?
● What evidence (including anecdotal evidence) have you seen of SCALE support leading to BHA-funded 
programs improving the implementation of their agriculture/NRM programming?
● In your opinion, will SCALE benefits be sustained in the long-term? (Do you think BHA-funded 
programs will continue to use SCALE knowledge once the program ends?
● How did SCALE collaborating with PRO-WASH improve SCALE outcomes? How could it be 
improved? What about IDEAL?
D. Efficiency – how effective SCALE’s approach to engaging with the IPs was
6 (3.1/3.2) We would now like to discuss if you have any thoughts about efficiency of the SCALE Award to 
engage with BHA-funded programs. Based on your understanding, what worked well and what can be 
improved with how SCALE initiated engagement with BHA-funded programs?
● What strategies did SCALE use to reach out to BHA-funded programs? How well have these strategies 
worked and what can be improved?
● How effective was SCALE’s collaboration with PRO-WASH to engage with BHA-funded programs? 
Were there any limitations due to this collaboration (for example, did it cause confusion)? How could this 
collaboration be improved?
● What do you think is the most useful time (within the RFSA cycle) for SCALE to reach out to BHA￾funded programs?
● Based on your understanding, how effective was SCALE’s outreach as part of the Program Cycle Support 
(PCS) Inception and Culmination workshops?
7 (1.3) Why do you think SCALE is engaged with a small proportion of emergency BHA-funded programs?
● What aspect of the program (i.e., design, staffing or management) limited its ability to engage with 
emergency BHA-funded programs? What would need to change?
● How are the needs of emergency BHA-funded programs different from non-emergency ones? Is SCALE 
able to cater to these needs?
8 (4.3) How has SCALE activities contributed to changes to USAID/BHA policies and standards?
● Has any of the resources or tools developed by SCALE informed any BHA changes? In what ways has 
the SCALE team actively engaged with BHA to advance their practices?
● In what ways has SCALE facilitated reflections and feedback from BHA-funded programs to influence 
BHA practices?
Close out
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time?
54 
V.b.v KII Guide - Other stakeholders (Other Food Security Support Mechanisms)
Key Informant Interview Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment 
(SCALE) Award
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent name:
Respondent organization:
Respondent position:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello all, thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Your participation in the interview is completely voluntary, and you may stop the interview at any time. If you agree to be 
interviewed, we will make written notes of your responses, which will not be discussed or shared with any programme staff. 
Your name will not appear in connection to any information you give us. 
This interview should take between 30 and 60 minutes. Are you willing to participate? 
A. Introduction
1 Can you first briefly tell me your organization and role, and what your connection to the SCALE Award is?
B. Program design - the extent to which the program’s design, staff and management enabled SCALE to meet its goals
2 (1.1) Based on your understanding of SCALE and of FSSMs in general, did the programmatic structure and 
adaptive management of the SCALE Award enable it to respond to BHA-funded program needs? 
● Is SCALE’s programmatic structure (i.e., knowledge capture, generation, application and sharing) 
appropriate for supporting BHA-funded program needs?
● What are your views on SCALE’s adaptive management strategy (i.e., the regular review of its strategic 
direction)? Do you think this supported SCALE’s ability to meet BHA-funded program needs?
● Does having an adaptive management strategy help FSSMs adapt to external factors (eg. COVID, 
FFP/OFDA merger)? Can you give examples from your FSSM?
55 
3 (1.2) Based on your understanding of SCALE, how appropriate is SCALE’s organizational and staffing 
structure for the implementation of the program?
● How could the program improve its staffing structure to better achieve targets?
● How does this compare to the experience of your award?
C. Effectiveness/Impact/Sustainability – how effective and impactful SCALE’s engagement with IPs was and how 
support has been institutionalized
4 (2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4/4.1/4.2) Based on your understanding, what impact did SCALE support have on BHA-funded 
programs, and has SCALE support been institutionalized by the program? (This includes the training, 
resources/tools and knowledge sharing platforms)
● Do you have any comments or thoughts about how effective and useful SCALE support has been for 
BHA-funded programs (and how sustained these benefits might be)?
● What are the barriers to BHA-funded programs being able to receive support and apply knowledge from 
FSSMs?
● What are the barriers to BHA-funded programs to institutionalize support received from FSSMs?
D. Efficiency – how effective SCALE’s approach to engaging with the IPs was
5 (3.1/3.2) Based on your experience, what works well to initiate engagement with BHA-funded programs?
● Do you have any thoughts about the strategies SCALE used to reach out to BHA-funded programs? How 
did these strategies compare to your FSSM?
● How effective was SCALE’s collaboration with PRO-WASH/IDEAL/PCS to engage with BHA-funded 
programs? Were there any limitations due to this collaboration (for example, did it cause confusion)? 
How could this collaboration be improved?
● What do you think is the most useful time (within the RFSA cycle) for FSSMs to reach out to BHA￾funded programs?
● Based on your understanding, how effective is FSSM outreach as part of the Program Cycle Support 
(PCS) Inception and Culmination workshops? Do you have any comments about SCALE’s experience 
with this?
6 (3.3) BHA-funded programs engage with SCALE and other FSSMs differently (i.e., they receive different 
types and different amounts of support), but they also have different expectations for what they want to 
achieve through this engagement. Do you have any thoughts about how to efficiently engage with BHA￾funded programs to meet their specific needs and expectations? 
● Based on your understanding of SCALE, as well as your experience with your FSSM, is it effective for 
engagement with BHA-funded programs to be ad hoc and for there to be engagement plans to determine 
what support is needed to meet their specific goals? (How can the development of engagement plans be 
improved?)
● Could you provide some examples from your experience with engaging BHA-funded programs
differently?
7 (1.3) What challenges / successes has your FSSM faced in engaging with BHA-funded emergency 
programs? 
● How are the needs of BHA-funded emergency programs different to non-emergency programs?
● What would need to change about your program for it to better engage with BHA-funded emergency 
programs?
8 (4.3) How has SCALE activities contributed to changes to USAID/BHA policies and standards?
● Are you aware of any resource or tool developed by SCALE that has informed any BHA changes?
● In what ways has SCALE facilitated reflections and feedback from BHA-funded programs to influence 
BHA practices?
● What is the experience of your award in influencing BHA practices and policies?
56 
Close out
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time?
V.b.vi FGD Guide - Implementation Partners (Community of Practice)
Small Discussion Group Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment 
(SCALE) Award
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent 1 details:
Respondent 2 details:
Respondent 3 details:
Respondent 4 details:
Respondent 5 details:
Respondent 6 details:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello all, thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Everyone’s participation in this group discussion is completely voluntary, and you may leave the group at any time. We will 
not share anything the group discusses here will be kept confidential, and your responses anonymous. Your name will not 
appear in connection to any information you give us. 
This group discussion should take no longer than 60 minutes. Are you willing to participate?
Introduction (responses in chatbox) (5 minutes)
Can you first briefly describe the RFSA you work with and what your role is?
57 
Can you briefly describe what type of support you have received from SCALE (i.e., resources/tools (including 
via the SCALE and FSN newsletters and website), training, or participating in the knowledge sharing 
platforms)?
A. Effectiveness/Impact – how effective/impactful was SCALE’s technical assistance (20 min)
1 (2.3) How useful have SCALE’s knowledge sharing platforms been to your RFSA? (Platforms include 
communities of practice, webinars, learning groups)
● In what way do these platforms support your RFSA to function? Can you provide some examples?
● How could these platforms be improved? (Probe about the management of the group, and on its 
effectiveness to share knowledge)
2 (2.1) If your RFSA received capacity strengthening training support and/or resources and tools from 
SCALE, how useful were they?
● How has the training support been tailored to your requests and/or needs? Was the level of engagement 
appropriate? What was most useful? 
● What resources/tools were most useful? 
● Have there been any barriers to your RFSA participating in capacity strengthening activities, or 
accessing SCALE resources and tools?
● What remaining technical gaps/existing challenges do you still have after receiving support? And that 
future support could address?
B. Sustainability – how IPs have institutionalized the resources and support provided by SCALE into their activities (8 
minutes)
3 (4.1/4.2) How well have you been able to integrate SCALE support into your organization’s operations? 
Have you been able to replicate the training support you received (to people within and outside of your 
organization? Will you continue to use and share the resources and tools received from SCALE?
● Can you provide some examples of where this has happened?
● What are the barriers and enablers to this?
● How has the SCALE Award supported this, and how can they do better?
C. Program design/efficiency - the extent to which the technical design enabled SCALE to meet its goals (i.e., engage 
effectively with RFSAs and meet RFSA needs) (20 minutes)
4 (3.1/3.2) Now we want to discuss how the SCALE Award created a good environment for you to engage with 
the program. How effective do you think SCALE’s outreach strategy is to initiate engagement with RFSAs?
● How did you first learn about SCALE (e.g., PCS Inception workshop)? What attracted you to engage 
with the SCALE Award?
● When in your RFSA cycle did you first engage, and was this the appropriate time? Would there have 
been a more effective time for SCALE to engage, from your perspective?
● How could SCALE’s outreach strategy be improved? (e.g., other outreach channels or events)
5 (1.1/1.2) Do you think the SCALE Award is set up well to respond to your needs (in terms of providing 
ag/NRM and livelihoods/markets-related support)?
● How was the SCALE Award able to learn about what your needs were? How could this be improved?
● Did you face any barriers in terms of working with SCALE? What could be improved? (e.g., staffing 
structure, communication channels)
Close out
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time?
58 
V.b.vii FGD Guide - Technical Committee
Small Discussion Group Guide
Client: Mercy Corps Global
Project name: Final Evaluation of the ‘Strengthening Capacity in Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment 
(SCALE) Award
Researcher name:
Interview mode:
Interview date:
Start time:
End time:
Respondent 1 details:
Respondent 2 details:
Respondent 3 details:
Respondent 4 details:
Respondent 5 details:
Respondent 6 details:
Informed consent obtained:
Hello all, thank you for agreeing to speak with me.
My name is [name] and I work with Bodhi Global Analysis. Bodhi is an independent British research company that has been 
engaged by Mercy Corps Global to undertake the final evaluation of the SCALE Award (‘Strengthening Capacity in 
Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Environment’ Award), now in its final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the 
relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the program, in order to gather lessons learned for future food security support 
mechanisms and other capacity strengthening activities.
Everyone’s participation in this group discussion is completely voluntary, and you may leave the group at any time. We will 
not share anything the group discusses here will be kept confidential, and your responses anonymous. Your name will not 
appear in connection to any information you give us.
This group discussion should not take longer than 60 minutes. Are you willing to participate?
Introduction (responses in chatbox) (5 min)
Can you first briefly describe your role and organization, and what your involvement has been with the 
SCALE Award (e.g., how long have you been part of the Technical Committee, as well as other ways you’ve 
engaged with SCALE or received its support)?
A. Program design - the extent to which the technical design (particularly program flexibility) enabled SCALE to meet 
its goals (30 min)
59 
1 (1.1) We want to discuss how the design of the SCALE Award (and the creation of the Technical Committee) 
created a good environment for you to engage with the SCALE team and its resources, and for it to 
respond to the needs of BHA-funded programs you support.
● What attracted you to engage with the SCALE Award? What do you value from being part of the 
Technical Committee? (What has kept you engaged?)
● How was the SCALE Award (through the Technical Committee) able to learn what the needs of BHA￾funded programs are? How could this be improved? 
● How effective is the design and management of the Technical Committee? How could it have been 
improved?
2 (1.2) How appropriate is SCALE’s organizational design and staffing structure for the implementation of 
the program?
● Can you provide examples of how SCALE’s staffing structure / design enabled successful outcomes? 
How about examples of how it may have hindered progress? 
● How did the design of the SCALE Award allow it to adapt to external factors (eg. COVID, FFP/OFDA 
merger)?
● How could SCALE improve its staffing structure / design to better achieve its goals?
3 (1.3) We would now like to discuss SCALE’s ability to provide technical assistance to BHA-funded 
emergency programs. For the most part, the SCALE Award has primarily engaged with non-emergency 
programs, and we would like to explore why this is.
● How might the needs of BHA-funded emergency programs be different to ones for non-emergency 
programs? Have you and your organization found SCALE’s resources relevant for emergency 
programs?
● What would need to change about the SCALE Award for it to better engage with and provide technical 
assistance to BHA-funded emergency programs?
B. Effectiveness/Impact/Sustainable – how effective SCALE’s technical assistance to IPs was, and how IPs have 
institutionalized SCALE support into their activities (15 min)
4 (2.1/2.2/2.3) Based on your understanding, how well was the support offered by SCALE received by the 
BHA-funded programs you support? (This includes the training, resources/tools and knowledge sharing 
platforms)
● What kind of support has been the most useful? What technical areas have been most useful?
● What remaining technical gaps/existing challenges exist for RFSAs (related to agriculture, NRM and 
livelihoods)?
● What do you think are the barriers to RFSAs being able to receive and use the support from SCALE?
5 (4.1/4.2) How well have you been able to integrate SCALE-related resources and training packages, etc into 
your organization’s operations?
● Have you been able to replicate the training support received from SCALE to programs and/or staff that 
haven’t directly engaged with the Award?
● Will you continue to use and share the resources and tools received from SCALE?
● What are the barriers and enablers to this?
● How has the SCALE Award supported this, and how can they do better?
C. Learning Application – how SCALE has influenced BHA policies and standards (6 min)
6 (4.3) Has the SCALE Award been able to facilitate any feedback or reflections you have to USAID/BHA?
● What mechanisms/platforms are in place for SCALE to facilitate your feedback to USAID/BHA?
● Is there a need for SCALE to act as a facilitator for your feedback to USAID/BHA?
Close out
60 
● Are there any other comments you would like to make at this time?
V.b.vii Online survey
Thank you for taking the time to respond to our survey. As noted in our introductory email, we anticipate that the survey will take up to 20 minutes of 
your time.
The survey aims to elicit your feedback on the support provided by PRO-WASH, SCALE or both awards. You will choose which award(s) specifically 
you would like to comment on.
Both PRO-WASH and SCALE are interested to learn from your views on the outcomes of the awards, how processes delivered under the awards 
influenced these outcomes, and particularly about the interests and needs of implementing partners for future support.
The responses you provide in this survey will be confidentially recorded, and will be shared with a team of analysts but nobody else. Neither your 
name nor other personally identifying information will appear in the analysis or any report. You may opt out at any time by closing the browser 
window, though we hope you feel comfortable responding in full.
We are grateful for your inputs into this process. Please feel comfortable to respond openly and truthfully – SCALE and PRO-WASH are eager to learn 
from this process, so that they may build on strengths and improve their performance going forward.
Variable Filter Question text Response options
PART 1: BACKGROUND INFO (12 questions)
A1 ALL
A1. Organization type:
[Single Choice]
1 = BHA-funded RFSA
2 = BHA-funded emergency program
3 = USAID-funded Associate Award/Food Security Support 
Mechanism
4 = USAID BHA staff
5 = USAID non-BHA staff
96 = Other
A2 A1 = 96 A2. If other, please specify your organization 
type
[Single Choice]
1 = Research/academic institution
2 = National/local government
3 = Local organization
4 = International organization
96 = Other
A3 A1 = 1, 2, 3 A3. Name of your USAID/BHA-funded 
program [Open-ended]
A4 ALL
A4. Your role/position: 
[Single Choice]
(Non-USAID) 1 = CoP or DCoP
(Non-USAID) 2 = Agriculture, Livelihoods, or Natural Resource 
management (NRM) staff 
(Non-USAID) 3 = WASH staff
(Non-USAID) 4 = SBC staff
(Non-USAID) 5 = M&E/Learning staff
(USAID) 6 = Award Management Staff
(USAID) 7 = Agriculture, Livelihoods, or Natural Resource 
management (NRM) staff
(USAID) 8 = WASH staff
(USAID) 9 = SBC staff
(USAID) 10 = M&E/Learning staff
(USAID) 11 = Food Security/Nutrition staff 
96 = Other
A4x A4 = 96 A4x. If other, please specify your role/position [Open-ended]
A5 ALL
A5. What country or region do you work in? [Single Choice]
1 = Global
2 = Region: Asia
3 = Region: Central and Southern Africa
61 
4 = Region: East Africa and the Horn
5 = Region: West Africa and the Sahel
6 = Region: Latin America and the Caribbean
X = [List of all countries]
A6 ALL
A6. Which Technical Support Program(s) do 
you want to provide feedback on?
Please choose on the basis of your knowledge 
of, and engagement with, SCALE and/or PRO￾WASH. You are welcome to provide feedback on 
one or both awards. If you would like to 
provide feedback on both awards, please click 
both boxes. 
You may respond on a program with which you 
have had little engagement if you have feedback 
to provide. 
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple select]
1 = SCALE
2 = PRO-WASH
SCALE Engagement: Please think about your engagement with SCALE
A7 A6 = 1
A7. Which learning documents or technical 
tools have you received from SCALE, if any?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple select, or 0 only]
1 = Technical guide
2 = Training manual or facilitator’s guide
3 = Learning brief or impact assessment
96 = Other (please specify)
0 = None
A7x A7 = 96
A7x. If other, please specify what other learning 
document or technical tool you received or 
accessed through SCALE.
[Open-ended]
A8 A6 = 1
A8. Which knowledge sharing events or 
activities have you participated in with SCALE, 
if any?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple select, or 0 only]
1 = Community of Practice (Anglophone)
2 = Community of Practice (Francophone)
3 = Learning Groups
4 = Webinars
96 = Other (please specify)
0 = None
A8x A8 = 96
A8x. If other, please specify what other 
knowledge sharing event facilitated by SCALE 
you attended.
[Open-ended]
A9 A6 = 1
A9. Which training or capacity strengthening 
activities have you participated in from 
SCALE, if any?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple select, or 0 only]
1 = Make Me a Change Agent (MMCA) Training (in-person)
2 = Make Me a Change Agent (MMCA) Training (online/remote)
3 = Permagarden or Resilience Design (RD) training (in-person)
4 = Permagarden or Resilience Design (RD) training (online/remote)
5 = Coaching / Mentorship (in-person)
6 = Coaching / Mentorship (online/remote)
0 = None
PART 2: FEEDBACK ON SCALE (Part 2 Filter - A6 = 1) (34 questions in total)
Section A: Relevance and Effectiveness of SCALE Support (16 questions)
B1 ALL
B1. To what extent are the types of resources 
and support SCALE offers relevant to the 
needs of your agriculture, NRM and/or 
livelihoods work?
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much
62
B2 ALL
B2. Which of SCALE’s technical focus areas
is most relevant to your agriculture, NRM 
and/or livelihoods work?
[Please select up to 3 responses]
[Multi-select, max 3 options]
1 = Climate services
2 = Resilient agriculture (e.g., Permagarden, Resilience Design) 
3 = Seed systems
4 = Multi-use water systems
5 = Livelihoods and markets
6 = Social and behavior change (SBC)
B3 ALL
B3. What additional focus areas related to 
agriculture, NRM and/or livelihoods would be 
useful to you?
[If none, please enter ‘None’]
[Open-ended]
0 = None / N/A
B4 A7 ≠ 0
B4. To what extent have you applied the 
knowledge from SCALE’s learning documents 
and/or technical tools in your work?
[Below is a list of items that you previously 
mentioned that you have accessed/received]
[Single select matrix]
Column
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much
Row (only if selected in A7): 
1 = Technical guide
2 = Training manual or facilitator’s guide
3 = Learning brief or impact assessment
96 = Other (that you previously specified)
B5 A7 ≠ 0
B5. Which of the following descriptions applies 
to the learning documents and/or technical tools 
that you have received from SCALE? 
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Easy to access
2 = User friendly
3 = Focused on technical areas relevant to your needs
4 = Provided the right level of technical information
0 = None of the above
B6 A7 ≠ 0
B6. Which learning document and/or technical 
tool was the most beneficial to you? Please 
explain why.
[Open-ended]
0 = None / N/A
B7 A7 ≠ 0
B7. With whom have you shared any of 
SCALE’s learning documents and/or technical 
tools, if anyone?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Colleagues (within your program)
2 = Community members or program participants
3 = Colleagues (outside of your program)
0 = No one
B8 A7 ≠ 0 &
B7 ≠ 0
B8. Which learning documents and/or technical 
tools have you shared? [Open-ended]
B9 A7 ≠ 0
B9. To what extent do you think you will 
continue to use and access SCALE resources 
after the SCALE program ends (e.g., through 
the FSN Network website) ?
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much
B10 A8 ≠ 0
B10. To what extent have you been able to 
apply in your work the knowledge you gained 
through participating in SCALE’s knowledge 
sharing platforms?
[Below is a list of activities you previously 
mentioned you have participated in]
[Single select matrix]
Column:
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much
Row (only if selected in A8):
1 = Community of Practice (Anglophone)
2 = Community of Practice (Francophone)
3 = Learning Groups
4 = Webinars
96 = Other (that you previously specified)
63 
B11 A8 ≠ 0
B11. Which of the following descriptions 
applies to the SCALE knowledge sharing 
platforms you participated in?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Convenient to attend
2 = Well-organized and facilitated
3 = Focused on relevant technical areas
4 = Provided practical knowledge that my program could apply
5 = Provided networking opportunities
6 = Was participatory and engaging 
0 = None of the above
B12 A8 ≠ 0
B12. Which knowledge sharing event was the 
most beneficial to you? Please explain why.
This could be a type of event, or an individual 
event or knowledge sharing session with a 
specific topic.
[Open-ended]
B13 A9 ≠ 0
B13. To what extent has the capacity 
strengthening support you received from 
SCALE improved your ability to do your job?
[Single select matrix]
Column:
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much
Row (only if selected in A9):
1 = Make Me a Change Agent (MMCA) Training (in-person)
2 = Make Me a Change Agent (MMCA) Training (online/remote)
3 = Permagarden or Resilience Design (RD) training (in-person)
4 = Permagarden or Resilience Design (RD) training (online/remote)
5 = Coaching / Mentorship (in-person)
6 = Coaching / Mentorship (online/remote)
B14 A9 ≠ 0
B14. Which of the following descriptions 
applies to the SCALE capacity strengthening 
activities you participated in? 
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Convenient to attend
2 = Focused on relevant technical areas
3 = Had the right level of technical information
4 = Included practical tools to help me apply learnings in my work
5 = Was participatory and practical 
0 = None of the above
B15 A9 ≠ 0
B15. How have you been able to pass on the 
knowledge you received from SCALE’s 
capacity strengthening activities (for example, 
training others on what you learned)? 
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Trained or mentored staff within your program
2 = Trained or mentored community members / program participants
3 = Trained or mentored staff from outside of your program
0 = Did not pass on the knowledge to anyone
B16 B15 ≠ 0 B16. Which type of knowledge or training have 
you been able to pass on? [Open-ended]
Section B: Impact and Sustainability of SCALE Support (6 questions)
C1 SCeng = 1
C1. In what ways has your engagement* with 
SCALE improved your program’s agriculture, 
NRM, and/or livelihood activities?
*Engagement with SCALE includes, for 
example, downloading/receiving SCALE 
learning documents or resources, attending 
SCALE webinars or communities of practice, or 
participating in any SCALE capacity 
strengthening activities.
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Additional, relevant activities were added to my program’s 
implementation plan
2 = The quality of your activities improved (i.e., program participants 
received more benefit)
3 = The implementation of your activities improved (i.e., rollout of 
activities was smoother with less problems)
4 = The skills of program staff increased
96 = Other (please specify)
0 = No improvement
C1x C1 = 96
C1x. If other, please specify what other way(s) 
has support received from SCALE improved 
your program’s agriculture, NRM and/or 
[Open-ended]
64 
livelihood activities?
C2 ALL
C2. What barriers (if any) have limited your 
ability to apply SCALE resources, guidance 
and tools into your work?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Limited understanding of the guidance
2 = Limited time available to apply new learning
3 = Lack of team willingness to adapt our work
4 = Lack of manager’s willingness to adapt our work to new learning
5 = Donor restrictions on adapting our work to new learning
6 = Budget availability
7 = External contextual factors (eg. COVID-19)
96 = Other (please specify)
0 = None
C2x C2 = 96
C2x. If other, please specify what other barriers 
have limited your ability to incorporate SCALE 
resources, guidance and tools into your work?
[Open-ended]
C3 SCeng = 1
C3. To what extent do you feel you will 
continue to use the knowledge or learnings 
you gained from SCALE after the SCALE 
Award and your program ends?
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much
C4 SCeng = 1
C4. What barriers (if any) will likely limit 
your ability to continue using SCALE 
resources, guidance, or knowledge after the 
SCALE Award has ended?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Limited understanding of the new learning
2 = Limited time available to apply new learning
3 = Lack of team willingness to adapt its work to new learning
4 = Lack of manager’s willingness to adapt work to new learning
5 = Donor restrictions on adapting work to new learning
6 = Budget availability
96 = Other
0 = None
C5 SCeng = 1
C5. Within your organization, were any new 
policies or practices developed due to new 
knowledge or learnings gained through 
SCALE?
[Single select]
1 = Yes
2 = No
C6 C5 ≠ 1
C6. Could you please provide an example of a 
new policy or practice your organization 
developed due to knowledge or learnings gained 
through SCALE?
[Open-ended]
Section C: Efficiency of SCALE engagement (12 questions)
D1 ALL D1. How did you first hear about SCALE?
[Single select]
1 = FSN Network website
2 = FSN Network newsletter
3 = Email from SCALE 
4 = Your manager or colleagues
5 = PCS-led Refine and Implement (R&I) Workshop
6 = Other listserv or website
96= Other (please specify)
D1x D1 = 6, 96 D1x. If other, please specify how you first heard 
about SCALE? [Open-ended]
D2 SCeng = 1
D2. When did you first engage with SCALE or 
first receive any support or resources from 
them?
[Single select]
1 = 2018
2 = 2019
3 = 2020
4 = 2021
5 = 2022
97 = I do not remember 
65
D3 SCeng = 1 D3. How frequently did you engage 
with/access support from SCALE?
[Single select]
1 = Only once
2 = Approximately once per year
3 = Approximately once every six months
4 = Approximately quarterly
5 = Approximately monthly
6 = Approximately weekly
7 = Approximately daily
D4 ALL
D4. To what extent was the way SCALE 
initiated contact with you effective in leading 
you to engage with SCALE support?
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = Somewhat
4 = Very much so
D5 ALL
D5. In your opinion, what is the best method 
for SCALE to reach out to implementing 
partners and stakeholders?
[Single select]
1 = FSN Network website
2 = FSN Network newsletter
3 = Email from SCALE 
4 = Through reaching out to program leadership
5 = Through workshops and learning events (e.g., PCS-led Refine and 
Implement (R&I) Workshop for BHA-funded programs)
96= Other (please specify)
D5x D5 = 96
D5x. If other, please specify the best method for 
SCALE to reach out to implementing partners 
and stakeholders.
[Open-ended]
D6 SCeng = 1 D6. At what point in your program cycle did 
you begin engaging with SCALE?
[Single select]
1 = Inception phase
2 = Beginning of program implementation 
3 = During program implementation 
4 = Wrap-up stage / end of program
D7 ALL
D7. Which of the following factors, if any, has 
limited or currently limits your desire or 
ability to engage with or access support from 
SCALE?
[Select all that apply]
[Multiple Selection, or 0 only]
1 = Not sure how to engage/access support from SCALE
2 = Not sure what resources and/or support was available from 
SCALE
3 = Technical areas were not of value to me
4 = Type of support activities did not match my needs
5 = Quality of SCALE’s support was poor, and therefore not of value 
to me 
6 = Geographic scope of the SCALE Award made support not relevant
7 = Timing / duration of the SCALE Award did not match my 
program’s timing
8 = Difficulty working with the SCALE team
9 = Language barriers
10 = Lack of time to engage/access support from SCALE
96 = Other
0 = Nothing limited my desire or ability to engage with SCALE
D7x D7 = 96
D7x. If other, please specify what other factors 
have limited your desire or ability to engage 
with or access support from SCALE.
[Open-ended]
D8 SCeng = 1
D8. Overall, to what extent did the resources 
and/or support you received from SCALE meet 
your needs for technical assistance (related to 
agriculture, NRM and/or livelihood)?
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = A lot
4 = Very much
D9 ALL
D9. Based on your needs relating to 
agriculture/NRM/livelihood, what do you think 
are the most effective tools or support 
activities offered by SCALE? 
[Select up to three choices]
[Multi-select, up to three options]
1 = Technical guides
2 = Training manual or facilitator’s guides
3 = Learning briefs or impact assessment papers
4 = Communities of Practice meetings
5 = Learning Groups
6 = Webinars
66 
7 = Make Me a Change Agent Training
8 = Permagarden or Resilience Design
9 = Tailored Coaching / Mentorship
D10 ALL
D10. To what extent do you feel that SCALE’s 
choice of technical focus areas and support 
activities responds to the most pressing needs
of current agriculture, NRM and/or livelihood 
programs?
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = A lot
4 = Very much
D11 SCeng = 1
D11. To what extent was SCALE able to adapt 
its support to respond to the changing needs
of agriculture, NRM and/or livelihood programs 
due to COVID-19? 
[Single select]
1 = Not at all
2 = A little
3 = A lot
4 = Very much
D12 ALL
D12. Do you have any other feedback or 
comments to provide about the SCALE Award, 
including how it could improve?
[Open-ended]
0 = None / NA
E1 ALL
E1. Would you be willing to participate in a 
short follow-up discussion if requested by the 
evaluation team for SCALE?
[Single select]
1 = Yes
0 = No
E2 E1 = 1 E2. What is your email address? [Open-ended]
SURVEY END
V.c Online survey results
See Excel spreadsheet here: 22-MC-GLO-1 - SCALE Final Evaluation (AnnexC-Survey Results Table).xlsx