MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR 
LICIT OPPORTUNITIES (CDLO) 
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
November 2022
DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for 
International Development or the United States Government
Contract Title: USAID/Colombia Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Activity
Contract Number: 72051419C00001
Submitted: November 8, 2022
Contractor: Panagora Group, Inc.
COR: Omar López
Authors: Hugo Navarro (Director of the Evaluation), Allison Benson (Thematic Expert), Lucía Llanes 
Valenzuela (Evaluation Specialist), Lizeth Molina (Quantitative Specialist), and Pablo Gutiérrez 
(Qualitative Specialist). 
The following MEL Activity staff supported the report development: Orlando Gracia, Luisa Fernanda 
Cardona, Juan Guillermo Bedoya, Yazmín Medina, David Doncel, Javier Rodríguez, and Julieth Forero. 
Panagora Group Contacts:
Ana María Rivera
Chief of Party
Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia
Email: arivera@panagoracolombia.net
Orlando Gracia
Lead Evaluation Expert
Carrera 7 No. 74B-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia
Email: ogracia@panagoracolombia.net
Majella van der Werf
Program Director
8601 Georgia Avenue, Suite 805, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Email: majellavanderwerf@panagoragroup.net 
i | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS II
ABSTRACT III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
EVALUATION PURPOSE 6
EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY 10
EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS 17
ANNEX I : RECOMMENDATIONS ACTIONS MATRIX 65
ANNEX II: SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DATA 78
ANNEX III: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
MATRIX 107
ANNEX IV: DETAILED METHODOLOGY 114
ANNEX V : INSTRUMENTS 167
ANNEX VI: DATA SOURCES 306
ANNEX VII: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK 319
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | ii
ACRONYMS
ADS Automated Directives System
AMELP Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan
ART Agency for Territorial Renewal (Agencia de Renovación del Territorio)
CBI Capacity Building Index (Índice de Fortalecimiento de Capacidades)
CBO Community-Based Organization 
CDLO Community Development and Licit Opportunities Activity 
CLA Collaboration, Learning, and Adapting
COP Colombian Peso
COR Contracting Officer’s Representative 
DNP National Planning Department (Departamento Nacional de Planeación)
FARC Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia)
GIS Geographic Information Systems 
GOC Government of Colombia 
IP Implementing Partner
IPSOS Institut Publique de Sondage de secteurs d'opinion 
JAC Community Action Board (Junta de Acción Comunal)
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
OPI Organizational Performance Index
PDET Territorially Focused Development Program (Programas de Desarrollo con 
Enfoque Territorial)
PNIS Comprehensive National Program for the Substitution of Illicit Crops 
(Programa Nacional Integral de Sustitución de Cultivos ilícitos)
SENA National Learning Service (Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje)
SOW Scope of Work
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development
iii | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ABSTRACT
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Colombia manages the Community 
Development and Licit Opportunities Activity (CDLO). The Activity was initiated in August 2017 to 
build the capacity of organizations in rural communities affected by Colombia’s internal armed conflict, 
working with government and private actors to implement social and economic development initiatives. 
The Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Activity (MEL) conducted a mid-term performance evaluation 
of CDLO to assess “the achievements of Community Development and Licit Opportunities Activity 
(CDLO) interventions, deliverables, and outcomes according to the work plan and theory of change and 
to what extent they are relevant based on the current national and local contexts.”1
The evaluation included closed, closing, and ongoing CDLO activities as of September 30, 2020. 
Qualitative and quantitative information was collected between February 8 and August 5, 2021. The 
Implementing Partner (IP) provided information on sales (July 2021 cutoff), commercial alliances (August 
2021 cutoff), and the Organizational Performance Index (OPI) (November 2021 cutoff). Implementing a 
mixed-methods approach, the evaluation found that CDLO has built networks of interdependence 
among community-based organizations (CBOs). These networks generated clusters of licit economic 
activities in areas with armed groups and incidences of illicit economic activities. CDLO has 
strengthened the capacities of CBOs by working with them to design and implement economic and 
infrastructure projects. CDLO´s support strengthened the organizational, productive, and commercial 
capacities of CBOs, including the construction of commercial partnerships. The evaluation also found 
that infrastructure projects executed jointly with Community Action Boards (JACs) responded to 
community needs and improved road infrastructure. These projects have been effective in strengthening 
the organizational capacities of CBOs, contributing to the efficient management of resources, the 
generation of surpluses to finance new projects, and CBOs’ legitimacy. As a result, these organizations 
are more prepared to execute future infrastructure projects. Moreover, the evaluation found that 
CDLO promoted the creation of dialogue networks with local actors and contributed to building trust 
and empowering communities to participate in planning and participatory spaces. 
CDLO’s main challenges in the future include consolidating and expanding the commercial capacities of 
producer CBOs to further increase and sustain income generation. Other challenges include scaling and 
replicating the successful infrastructure project execution model with JACs. Implementing a robust 
strategy to systematize, socialize, and transfer the methodologies and lessons learned is also crucial, as is 
strengthening coordination with other actors and leveraging budgetary resources from various sources.
1 See Annex VII. Scope of work of the mid-term performance evaluation of CDLO. 
1 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section summarizes the methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the mid-term 
performance evaluation of the Community Development and Licit Opportunities (CDLO) Activity. 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND LICIT OPPORTUNITIES (CDLO)
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Colombia's Office of Rural Economic 
Development manages the CDLO Activity under the Country Development Cooperation Strategy 
(CDCS) Development Objective 3. Tetra Tech is the implementer of this Activity. CDLO was initiated 
in August 2017 with the objective of “building capacity in rural communities affected by the conflict to 
become reliable and effective partners of the Government and the private sector for the implementation 
of comprehensive rural social and economic development initiatives, including the promotion of illicit 
crop substitution and alternative development.” The Activity comprises four strategic, connected, and 
synergistic components. These components aim to 1) strengthen local communities and CBOs, 2)
promote sustainable economic development, 3) contribute to providing essential goods and services, 
and 4) engage in multilevel dialogues for development planning. CDLO works with three types of CBOs: 
economic development CBOs made up of organizations engaged in productive economic activities 
(hereafter referred to as “producer CBOs”); community action boards (JACs); and other CBOs, a 
category that comprises women’s groups, music groups, communications collectives, sports associations, 
and other community and civic groups. CDLO strengthens these CBOs’ capacities through hands-on 
exercises and specific projects related to development in their territories. 
METHODOLOGY
This evaluation's main unit of analysis is CBOs, using a mixed-methods approach that combines
qualitative, quantitative, and geographic analysis components. 
The qualitative component sought to identify how the CDLO Activity generates processes and 
mechanisms that establish the results obtained by CBOs when interacting with local actors. The 
qualitative component sample includes 12 municipalities in nine departments. The evaluation team 
conducted 101 semi-structured interviews,2 ten group sessions (focus group and social mapping), and 
ten ethnographic tours.
MELA collected data from actors involved in CDLO activities: CBOs, CDLO national and local staff 
members, territorial and national level government officials, and commercial partners. 
The quantitative component sought to establish the experience, achievements, and results of 
participation in CDLO by CBO directors and members. The instruments of the quantitative component 
included two surveys. The surveys characterized the CDLO Activity using information provided by CBO 
directors and members. The sample included a census of 309 CBOs and used a non-probabilistic sample 
2 Semi-structured interviews offer the researcher considerable leeway in probing respondents, as well as maintaining the basic 
structure of the interview. Even if it is a guided conversation between researchers and interviewees, there is flexibility. The 
researcher can follow any idea or creatively take advantage of the entire interview.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 2
design to gauge 1,090 members of CBO’s. The firm IPSOS collected survey data between May 1 -
August 5, 2021, across 37 municipalities, 35 corridors, and nine departments.3
Geographically, the evaluation team depicted the spaces in which interactions between CBOs took place 
and in which relationships among them existed. The qualitative component included ten social maps, 
surveys of CBO directors, and secondary data sources. The approach integrated qualitative and 
quantitative data into maps to analyze the dynamics of these variables in the territory.
The evaluation team triangulated evidence across the different methodologies to increase the 
robustness of the findings. The team also used different types and sources of representative evidence, 
which were identified when evidence was reiterated and repeated, as a means to identify trends. The 
evaluation team identified 52 findings from this analysis and derived 25 conclusions and 26 
recommendations from the findings. The next section summarizes the main findings and conclusions.
MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
QUESTION 1: HOW HAVE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND POLITICAL CONTEXT IN 
CDLO'S AREAS AFFECTED THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 
FORMULATED ACTIVITIES? 
The municipalities in which CDLO operates have high poverty levels compared to non-targeted 
municipalities. Security indicators such as murders, extortion, and the presence of illegal armed groups 
also reflect worse conditions for people in CDLO municipalities than for non-CDLO municipalities. 
Three out of ten CBO members declared that illicit economies are present in their veredas. The 
evaluation findings reflect that these contextual characteristics, especially security conditions, affected 
CDLO's activities in at least three ways: 1) they hindered CDLO's ability to intervene in targeted areas; 
2) security conditions sometimes imposed delays or caused activities to be rescheduled; and 3) they 
caused CDLO to implement safety measures already used by community members in the areas (e.g., 
observing community curfews and visiting certain rural areas only when accompanied by community 
members) in an effort to protect Activity staff and partners. 
CDLO activities generated clusters of licit economies when concentrated in areas with a lower 
presence of illicit crops and where economic, social, and infrastructure projects were implemented. 
The territories in which CDLO operates overlap considerably with areas prioritized for the 
Government of Colombia’s development activities under Colombia’s 2016 Peace Agreement. 
Communities have mostly positive expectations regarding projects such as the Territorially Focused 
Development Programs (PDETs), and CDLO´s interaction with local and national actors allowed for 
activities to be aligned to the needs and nuances of the communities; however, limitations in 
infrastructure and provision of basic services, as well as the low levels of institutional capacity across 
these territories, have affected the establishment, development, and results of CDLO activities.
3 CDLO employs a territorial development approach, which focuses on spaces that share common conditions among or within 
veredas – rural sub-municipal territorial divisions analogous to a small rural neighborhood – of one or more municipalities. The 
Activity refers to these spaces as corridors and aims to connect actions and facilitate synergies between them at local, regional, 
and national levels
3 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CDLO has been successful in adapting the design and operation of the Activity to the characteristics of 
the territories. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Activity leveraged previous knowledge and 
experiences and adapted to changing contexts. 
QUESTION 2: WHAT CAPACITY-BUILDING EFFECTS ARE SEEN IN COMMUNITY GROUPS AND 
PRODUCER ORGANIZATIONS THAT BENEFITED FROM CDLO’S ACTIVITIES? 
CDLO has strengthened the internal capacity of CBOs through a strategy based on the direct 
participation of CBOs in the design and implementation of territorial development activities. In 
particular, JACs have acquired the capacity to efficiently manage resources in the execution of 
infrastructure initiatives, improving their human, physical, and financial resource management, and 
promoting the formalization of contracting relationships. As a result, JACs reported having the capacity 
to continue executing infrastructure projects, although few have been involved in new projects. 
Uncertainty exists about whether JACs have the resources to contract engineering and accounting 
professionals to execute future projects.
Producer CBOs reported strengthened organizational, technical, productive, and commercial capacities. 
Joint work, commercial alliances with private partners, and hands-on work to design and implement 
strategies to respond to market demands have been crucial for capacity building.
Other CBOs have also increased their capacity to support and complement territorial development, 
strengthening their planning processes and diversifying their activities. In addition, CDLO built capacity 
among young people and promoted a generational change in CBO leadership.4
Through CDLO´s capacity building and the design and implementation of territorial development 
projects, the evaluation showed that the Activity promotes a culture of legality and formality and 
enhances the social fabric in the targeted territories. 
Despite this progress, the need to enhance the capacity-building process remains – including the need to
enhance technical capacity and CBO’s ability to access financial resources. Despite these advances, there 
are challenges to strengthening, scaling, and achieving sustainable commercial partnerships that increase 
income generation. 
QUESTION 3: HAS CDLO'S INTERVENTION BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CREATING A LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 
CONDUCIVE TO A LICIT ECONOMY IN THE TARGETED REGIONS? 
CBOs perceive a positive and improving economic environment and perceive CDLO activities as an 
opportunity to reduce the influence of illicit economic activities and to create clusters of licit economic 
activities. 
CDLO has contributed to strengthening local economic development through social and productive 
capacity-building and through improvements in road infrastructure that have reduced travel time and 
4 The evaluation team classified CBOs into three categories: i) producer organizations, which refers to economic development
and commercial organizations; ii) JACs, referring to community organization boards; and iii) Other CBOs, referring to cultural 
and sports groups, youth associations, communication collectives, among others. When relevant, the evaluation team 
disaggregated the analysis into these three categories.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 4
costs. CDLO´s contribution to economic development has benefited CBOs and the communities to 
which they belong. 
Although most producer CBOs engage in traditional economic activities,5 CDLO has financed mainly 
non-traditional economic activities including rural tourism, gastronomy, jewelry making, and musical 
instrument-making, contributing to the diversification of local economies. CDLO has also stimulated 
income generating activities for producer CBOs, promoted the participation of young people, and 
contributed to reviving ancestral traditions. 
CBOs perceive the relevance of CDLO as the main actor providing economic contributions, even when 
compared to institutional actors such as the government, the private sector, and other international 
development programs. CDLO has leveraged essential resources in the target territories; however, 
additional investments from various actors could be leveraged and coordinated. For example, access to 
rural goods and services, including internet and technical assistance, remains limited.
While there have been improvements in the sales and income generation of producer CBOs, challenges 
remain with regard to strengthening, expanding, and sustaining commercial opportunities, as only around 
half of CBOs surveyed reported having current commercial agreements or experiencing increased sales. 
Opportunities exist to strengthen follow-up data collection on the economic outcomes of CBOs that 
participated in CDLO activities in order to identify areas for improvement.
Producer CBOs that have not generated income identified challenges such as a lack of access to financial 
resources (the CDLO intervention model did not provide this service) and a lack of equipment, 
technical assistance, training, and connections to forge partnerships. 
CDLO has rigorously complied with USAID's environmental requirements and Colombian
environmental regulations. However, the intervention model did not include specific actions related to 
environmental practices, which CBOs developed independently. These practices could be supported as a 
mechanism to strengthen added value through compliance with environmental standards that some 
markets may demand.
QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE ACTIVITY´S MODEL TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES BEEN 
IN REACHING ITS RESULTS? 
CDLO’s model of executing public projects through JACs has been successful. Most CBOs have 
participated in infrastructure projects' design, execution, and follow-up. In addition, JACs have become 
more efficient in managing financial resources, with some even generating surpluses to finance new 
projects. These improvements in management have helped JACs gain internal and external legitimacy to 
carry out future infrastructure projects, although most have not carried out additional projects.
CDLO's goods and services provision projects have responded to the needs of CBOs and their 
communities. The Activity is recognized as the main actor supporting the maintenance of infrastructure.
5 According to comments on the presentation of findings and conclusions of the evaluation prepared by CDLO in November 
2021, "the traditional economy involves all agricultural and agro-industrial activities with an innovative and market approach, 
while the non-traditional economy involves community tourism chains, creative industries and communication groups."
5 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
In addition, through road improvements and the provision of utilities in schools and community centers, 
CDLO has contributed indirectly to increasing access to essential services. 
Despite CDLO´s contribution to providing goods and services, low coverage and limited access to 
services remains prevalent in CDLO municipalities and corridors.6 This challenge requires coordinated 
actions by different actors to leverage budgetary resources from other sources, which go beyond the 
Activity's scope. 
QUESTION 5: HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE MECHANISMS BEEN IN FOSTERING 
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND INCREASING THE IMPACT OF TERRITORIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS? 
The evaluation found that developing infrastructure projects with CBOs represented an initial step in
building the trust required to engage actors in multilevel dialogues. Multilevel dialogue mechanisms have 
built and strengthened networks between CBOs, including horizontal linkages between producer CBOs 
working in traditional economic sectors and producer CBOs in non-traditional sectors, and between 
producer CBOs and other types of organizations (e.g., community communications collectives). The 
networks formed by CDLO-beneficiary CBOs have enabled the establishment of thriving clusters of licit 
economic activities where, in the past, relationships, communication, and cooperation among actors 
were affected by armed conflict. 
CDLO has successfully built capacity, opportunities, and trust, which enables CBOs to establish better 
relationships with various public and private sector actors. 
CDLO´s communication strategies have contributed to redefining the collective identity of stigmatized 
municipalities, generating a sense of belonging, pride, and self-worth. However, an opportunity remains
to continue supporting and increasing these strategies' scope. 
QUESTION 6: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS CDLO’S CONTRIBUTION BEEN TO THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
STRATEGY DEVISED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA THROUGH DIFFERENT 
PLANNING INITIATIVES? 
CDLO has promoted the participation of CBOs in formal local engagement and planning spaces and has 
supported coordination and linkages with territorial and national government entities. However, in the 
context of CBOs working with limited infrastructure, limited provision of basic services, and low levels 
of institutional capacity, opportunities exist to further strengthen the process of creating connections to 
implement territorial development initiatives.
Various actors recognize CDLO methodologies as valuable. There is potential for these methods to be 
systematized and transferred to different national and local actors to share lessons and intervention 
models that can be scaled and replicated to other programs and public policies.
6 Some variables and indicators were calculated at corridor level.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 6
EVALUATION PURPOSE
This mid-term performance evaluation´s purpose is to assess the achievements, outputs, and outcomes 
of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Colombia Community 
Development and Licit Opportunities Activity (CDLO) under the Activity work plan and the theory of 
change, establishing their relevance in the current Colombian national and local contexts. 
The evaluation provides data and analyses to determine the extent to which CDLO is achieving its 
stated objective of “building the capacity of rural communities affected by the armed conflict to become 
reliable and effective partners of the Government and the private sector for the implementation of 
comprehensive rural social and economic development initiatives, including the promotion of illicit crop 
substitution and alternative development.”7
The evaluation is structured around six questions that address the influence of national and local 
contexts on CDLO's effectiveness, its achievements in generating community capacity, its contributions 
to economic development and the provision of goods and services, as well as its progress in promoting 
multilevel dialogue among relevant stakeholders towards development planning and its contribution to 
national and territorial policies and programs. 
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
USAID Colombia manages the CDLO Activity under Development Objective 3 of the Colombia 
Country Development Cooperation Strategies for 2014-2018 and 2020-2025. Tetra Tech implements
the Activity. CDLO was launched in August 2017 to build capacity in rural communities affected by 
Colombia’s internal armed conflict, working with government and private actors to implement social and 
economic development initiatives. The achievement of CDLO's objectives contributes to improving 
relationships and interactions between the state and the community, an important development 
challenge in post-conflict areas. In addition, CDLO aims to increase levels of trust and legitimacy in 
communities to generate social capital and promote more community engagement in the public sphere 
and in productive activities. CDLO is implemented in 51 municipalities with a high presence of armed 
groups, illicit crops, and security issues.8 These municipalities are located in nine departments across six 
regions. Four of these regions account for 88 percent of CDLO’s activities, with their respective shares 
ranging from 19 to 27 percent of all activities.9 11 percent of the activities take place in the remaining 
two regions.10 CDLO employs a territorial development approach which focuses on spaces that share 
common conditions among or within veredas – rural sub-municipal territorial divisions analogous to a 
small rural neighborhood – of one or more municipalities.11 The Activity refers to these spaces as 
7 CDLO Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan, page 7 8 Source: Mission System as of September 30, 2020.
9 These regions are the Southwest (comprising the departments of Nariño and Cauca); Central I (comprising the departments 
of Caquetá and Putumayo), with the largest single investment share of all regions at 29.0 percent; Central II (comprising the
departments of Meta and Guaviare); and North (comprising the departments of Antioquia and Córdoba). 10 These regions are the Northeast (Norte de Santander, with 2.0 percent of activities and 2.2 percent of investment), and the 
National level (i.e., activities implemented in all regions without regional tailoring, such as trainings on budget preparation) with 
9.0 percent of activities and 12.0 percent of investment. The information is included as of September 30, 2022. 11 In Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, the territorial development model is presented. A vereda is the smallest 
territorial/administrative division in Colombia. Although some veredas are located in peri-urban areas, and while they may 
contain a hamlet as a kind of nucleus, veredas are overwhelmingly rural, with households scattered at a distance from one 
another within a largely rural landscape. 
7 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
corridors and aims to connect actions and facilitate synergies between them at local, regional, and 
national levels. 
CDLO implemented 129 activities between its implementation and September 30, 2020.12 The main 
components are as follows: 41 percent relate to socioeconomic development; 34 percent to 
infrastructure and public service improvement; 12 percent to creating multilevel dialogue mechanisms; 
12 percent to strengthening community organizations; and one percent to cross-cutting activities. The 
economic development component and provision of goods component each account for 41 percent of a 
total USAID investment of COP 68,649 million.13 
The direct beneficiaries of CDLO are 425 community-based organizations (CBOs) in the intervention 
territories.14 Three types of CBOs participated in the Activity: producer organizations, community 
action boards (JACs), and a range of civic and cultural groups, including women’s groups, youth groups, 
sports associations, and communication collectives, which the evaluation refers to as Other CBOs. 
Of these CBOs, 45.4 percent are linked to the economic development component (producer CBOs); 
33.6 percent to the provision of goods and services (JACs); 14.2 percent to strengthening organizations; 
and the remaining 6.8 percent to the creation of multilevel dialogue mechanisms. 
The Activity established four strategic, articulated objectives, which aim to complement each other and 
create synergies that broaden the impact of the Activity.15 Each objective is directly connected to a 
CDLO component, presented below. 
CDLO COMPONENT 1. Strengthening local communities and CBOs (referred to herein as 
organizational capacity building) that have been affected by the conflict, as well as strengthening 
government actors acquiring capacities and empowering them to become reliable partners for the 
implementation of local development activities. CDLO contributes to capacity building in business 
management, customer service, marketing and communication strategies, information and 
communication technology, and management of commercial events such as trade fairs. CDLO tailors its 
capacity building activities to the type of CBO and the CDLO activity in which CBOs engage. Under the 
CDLO model, CBOs strengthen their capacities mainly through hands-on exercises, engaging in 
designing and implementing productive and infrastructure-related activities with guidance from CDLO.16
Organizational capacity building is understood as a cross-cutting axis that enables other objectives and 
components of CDLO. 80 percent of CDLO CBOs are involved in the Activity’s other three 
components (i.e., economic, infrastructure, and communications) to implement the organizational 
capacity-building component.17 Of the surveyed CBOs, 42.7 percent are linked to the economic 
component, with 76.5 percent of these being agricultural producers. In turn, 32.2 percent of the CBOs 
are related to infrastructure activities, with 95.6 percent of these being JACs. The remaining 20.1 
percent of CBOs participate in the capacity strengthening and multilevel dialogue components. Among 
12 This evaluation was carried out based on this group of activities, which are classified as closed, in closure, and in execution. 
This information was taken from Mission Activity, October 1, 2021. 
13 The remaining 17.6 percent of investment resources correspond to 9.4 percent for the creation of multilevel dialogue 
mechanisms; 8.1 percent for strengthening of community organizations; and 0.1 percent for cross-cutting activities. 14 Source: Mission System as of September 30, 2020. 15 Document Section C of the contract update, page 1. 16 Economic and infrastructure component activities represent 82.5 percent of the resources invested in CDLO. 17 There are three types of CBOs: producer organizations, JACs, and Other CBOs (which include organizations such as 
communications collectives, youth groups, sports groups, and women's groups).
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 8
other CBOs, 31.9 percent participate in the economic component and 8.5 percent in the infrastructure 
component. The other CBOs were involved in organizational capacity building and multilevel dialogue 
activities. 
The implementation of CDLO activities allows producer CBOs to manage elements of the creation or 
consolidation of their businesses, such as problem-solving to promote value chains, marketing, or the 
representation of their members.18 For JACs, the implementation provides hands-on experience in the 
provision of goods and services, as well as in exercising effective oversight. 
Capacity building is a cross-cutting component of CDLO's model. CDLO's premise is that “a 
strengthened CBO will be better at providing services to its members and communities. This promotes 
cooperation among citizens and results in [a greater sense of belonging and connection to] the territory 
and greater integration with the public and private sectors.”19 In other words, the CDLO model 
considers a strengthened CBO to be a more capable and effective partner to the public and private 
sectors. 
CDLO COMPONENT 2. Linking organized communities to provide essential goods and services and 
improve and maintain infrastructure in conflict-affected areas (referred to herein as the provision of 
goods and services). Under this component, CDLO facilitates links between CBOs to develop social and 
productive infrastructure projects and provide goods and services. Through their work, CBOs 
contribute to the development and viability of the activities. Through hands-on exercises, the CBOs 
involved in this component, almost all of which are JACs, participate in the definition, design, 
implementation, and oversight of infrastructure works. Through this experiential learning (learning-by￾doing) process, the JACs acquire the necessary technical, administrative, and organizational capacities to 
actively manage new agreements for small infrastructure projects with territorial and national entities 
and the private sector.20 In addition, the infrastructure component of CDLO helps build initial trust in 
communities because it allows the Activity and the JACs to demonstrate a tangible achievement to the 
targeted communities. 
CDLO COMPONENT 3. Establishing links between producer organizations, local associations, 
productive partnerships, and local and regional businesses through the design and implementation of 
rural development activities (in traditional, non-traditional, and infrastructure sectors of the economy). 
The rural development activities align with the productive vocation of the territory (that is appropriate 
to the local context in productive and cultural terms) to promote sustainable economic development in 
conflict-affected areas (referred to herein as economic development). This component also promotes 
and strengthens partnerships and supply chains linking entrepreneurs, producers, and local and national 
markets. Thus, it seeks to help build the conditions for inclusive rural economic growth and 
development opportunities to solidify a lasting and sustainable peace. CBOs that participate in this 
component strengthen their capacities through hands-on exercises as they develop their productive 
activities. 
18 Comments on the presentation on findings and conclusions of the evaluation prepared by the implementing partner. The 
representation of its members refers to matters related to the business of the CBOs, as well as in different spaces of 
participation and decision with the public and private sectors.
19 CDLO. Monitoring and evaluation guide. Page 42. 20 Ibid.
9 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CDLOs’ activities seek to respond to rural communities’ expectations and promote licit and sustainable 
economic growth through strengthening and innovating traditional and non-traditional economies and
encouraging the development of licit economic clusters in the corridors. Boosting local economies 
entails providing technical and organizational services and infrastructure to support the development of 
productive activities directly, which also depends on linking producer groups to markets through private 
sector partners. Producer CBOs are the leading actors of CDLOs’ economic component, which aims to 
contribute to capacity building, improve productive activities, and the establish commercial agreements. 
CDLO COMPONENT 4. Community engagement in multilevel dialogues for development planning in 
conflict-affected areas (referred to herein as the creation of multilevel dialogue mechanisms). 
Strengthening communication mechanisms between the state and local communities establishes 
community organizations as legitimate representatives who can develop effective dialogue channels and 
partnerships with other actors. This enables communities to engage in decision-making and management 
processes related to territorial development.21 These dialogues allow organizations to develop 
relationships and influence government and private sector actors. Engaging in dialogues with other 
actors allows JACs to adopt procurement models for small public and private infrastructure projects, 
leveraging funds from foundations, oil companies, and other organizations. With the guidance of CDLO 
and an experiential learning approach, the JACs generate the capacity to develop infrastructure projects. 
CDLO also facilitates capacity building for communications collectives to design and disseminate 
messages and promote the productive activities and the provision of goods and services developed by 
the CBOs in other CDLO components. CDLO does not intend for communications collectives to lead 
multilevel dialogue processes.22 Instead, these collectives promote communication for the distribution, 
promotion, design, and marketing of local processes and brands that contribute to development.
Multilevel dialogue is the transversal component of CDLO, which seeks to connect and consolidate its 
four components. Multilevel dialogue creates synergies between the different elements of CDLO 
(objectives, components, activities, and actors) and promotes the sustainability of the Activity. CDLO’s 
purpose is to strengthen the capacities of CBOs through hands-on exercises, participation in decision￾making on infrastructure site selection and design of activities, as well as in the implementation and 
community oversight of activities. It ultimately aims to achieve (without this being an expected result of 
CDLO) community management and participation in decisions that concern territorial development.
21 Comments on the presentation on findings and conclusions of the evaluation prepared by the implementing partner. 22 Ibid
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 10
EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
This evaluation answers the six questions outlined in the Scope of Work document. Each of the 
questions considers the context and scope.23 This section presents each evaluation question (in red) and 
the information, data, and other inputs used to answer each question.24 The evaluation team defined an 
evaluation methodology and an evaluation matrix in line with the objectives and conditions of CDLO 
implementation. The evaluation team also established the evaluation categories of analysis for each 
question. 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Q1. HOW HAVE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS IN CDLO'S 
AREAS AFFECTED THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 
FORMULATED ACTIVITIES?
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS. The activities carried out by CDLO are based on five critical assumptions: 
• CDLO activities should employ an approach that meets the needs of the geographic corridors,
incorporating the differences across populations and infrastructure and enhancing rural investment. 
• The success and sustainability of CDLO activities largely depend on the security conditions that the 
Government of Colombia can provide in the corridors. 
• Infrastructure limitations and low levels of investment in the corridors should be considered within 
CDLO activities. 
• Creating synergies and collaborative contributions among actors to compensate for the territories’ 
limited resources and rural infrastructure needs is important; and
• CDLO prioritizes local corridors according to their strategic importance and security levels. The 
evaluation assesses CDLO´s performance and effectiveness, considering how the corridors' context 
affects CDLO implementation to answer this evaluation question.25 
CONTEXT VARIABLES. The evaluation approaches the analysis of the context using the following four 
categories of variables: 1) social coexistence and conflict related to public security; 2) illicit rural 
economies related to illicit crops and drugs, illegal mining, and other illicit economic activities; 3) political 
and institutional context, addressing institutional services within the framework of the Peace Agreement; 
and finally, 4) the municipal socioeconomic context, which includes multidimensional poverty levels, the 
coverage of social services, employment, and income growth variables, and the effects of COVID-19. 
23 See Annex VII. Evaluation Scope of Work, Evaluation Questions section. 24 In Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, the design matrix is presented and details on how the evaluation team answered each 
question are presented. 25 The evaluation team defined effectiveness as the fulfillment of the Activity’s objectives. 
11 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q2. WHAT CAPACITY-BUILDING EFFECTS ARE SEEN IN COMMUNITY GROUPS AND PRODUCER 
ORGANIZATIONS THAT BENEFITED FROM CDLO’S ACTIVITIES?
CAPACITY STRENGTHENING VARIABLES. The evaluation team defined two categories of analysis 
to structure the findings: 1) organizational capacity (e.g., governance, administrative, planning, human 
resources, and financial management) and 2) social and community capacity (e.g., community ties, 
conflict management, trust, shared values, and visions for territorial development). The evaluation team
also identified CDLO strategies and capacity-building tools (e.g., selecting participants, methodologies, 
scope, and achievements).
Q3. HAS CDLO'S INTERVENTION BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CREATING A LOCAL ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE 
TO A LICIT ECONOMY IN THE TARGETED REGIONS?
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VARIABLES. The evaluation team applied three categories of analysis 
for economic development: 1) the harnessing of economic opportunities related to the diversification of 
productive activities, innovation processes, and the assessment of local assets; 2) boosting the local 
economy, which is associated with linking markets, capacity support services (technical, financial, and 
commercial), and developing productive and social infrastructure to support the licit economy; and 3) 
the economic, financial, social, and environmental sustainability of activities. 
Q4. HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE ACTIVITY´S MODEL TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES BEEN IN 
REACHING ITS RESULTS? 
INFRASTRUCTURE VARIABLES. The evaluation team established two categories of analysis for 
infrastructure projects: 1) provision of public social goods and services (i.e., access, coverage, 
functionality, and quality of the services provided); and 2) community involvement in the provision of 
goods and services (experiences of communities in the provision of goods and services and related 
coordination with the institutional framework).26
Q5. HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE MECHANISMS BEEN IN FOSTERING 
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND INCREASING THE IMPACT ON TERRITORIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS? 
MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE VARIABLES. The evaluation team established two categories of analysis: 1) 
multilevel dialogue mechanisms between CBOs, and 2) multilevel dialogue mechanisms with the public 
and private sectors. These categories address variables related to networking, community relations with 
interest groups, communication for development, citizen participation, and coordination and connection 
processes. 
Q6. HOW EFFECTIVE HAS CDLO’S CONTRIBUTION BEEN TO THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 
DEVISED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA THROUGH DIFFERENT PLANNING 
INITIATIVES? 
THE CDLO MODEL assumes that in the local context and through participation or involvement in 
existing public policy planning processes, CBOs and institutional and private sector partners can create 
26 The institutional framework refers to local level institutions in charge of developing public works or interventions, such as 
mayors’ offices and municipal secretariats.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 12
synergies to enhance the scope of the activities developed. Question six assesses how the different 
community actors linked to CDLO have contributed to the development of this model in the 
territories. It is worth noting that this development contribution is not an expected purpose for all the 
activities carried out by CDLO, nor does CDLO intend to influence public policy directly. Instead, the 
evaluation understands CDLO's contribution to the territorial development strategy as enabling the 
Activity’s CBO beneficiaries to participate in the planning processes of existing public policy.
TERRITORIAL CONTRIBUTION VARIABLES. The evaluation team approached this question using 
three categories of analysis: 1) the Activity´s contribution to the design of public policy (diagnoses and 
formulation of territorial development plans, programs, or works at the national, departmental, and 
municipal levels); 2) contribution to implementation through complementary investments or co-financing 
from different levels of government; and 3) the revision or reframing of public policy through CDLO's 
conceptual, methodological, operational, and evaluative contributions based on its intervention
methodologies. 
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation is designed to address the results of CDLO's objectives related to its direct beneficiaries, 
the CBOs carrying out social and economic activities in the geographic corridors. The geographic 
corridors are made up mainly of intra-municipal groupings of veredas. The evaluation includes 129 
completed or in-progress activities as of September 30, 2020.27 
The methodological approach of the evaluation was designed as a mixed-methods design, combining 
three components: qualitative, quantitative, and geographic. This design allows the identification, 
assessment, and in-depth understanding of relationships between variables, using a variety of primary and 
secondary data collection instruments and analytical methods. The methodological approach to 
answering the evaluation questions was structured based on two principal elements: 1) aspects common 
to all evaluation questions (i.e., those systematically used to address each of the evaluation questions, 
such as the calculation and analysis of indicators from the surveys applied and triangulation with 
qualitative information from interviews and group activities), and 2) specific elements applied to some of 
the questions according to their characteristics and the purpose of analysis (e.g., the development of 
regression models to find variables that were associated with the strengthening of economic activities).28
QUALITATIVE COMPONENT 
The qualitative methods used in the evaluation are intended to provide detailed data on how the CDLO 
intervention generates processes and mechanisms that determine the CBOs’ results when interacting 
with local actors in the geographic corridors. The analysis uses a value mapping framework focused on 
the following: captured value, lost value, destroyed value, new opportunities for value generation, and 
territorial competitiveness. “Captured value” refers to positive benefits generated by CDLO for each 
CBO or in its context (i.e., within a corridor).29 “Lost value” refers to inefficiencies in CDLO's 
27 Of these 129 activities, 53 are economic, 44 are related to infrastructure, 16 with multilevel dialogue, 15 with CBO 
strengthening, and one is cross-cutting. 28 Annex IV. Detailed Methodology includes the evaluation matrix, which specifies how the team approached each of the 
questions and the informants for each dimension of the analysis. Annex V. Instruments includes the data collection tools and 
Annex VI. Data Sources includes the quantitative sample and data sources. 29 See Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, Qualitative Data Analysis section.
13 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
interactions with CBOs or missed opportunities that do not allow CBOs to improve the situation of 
beneficiaries. Lost value is associated with perceptions of CDLO’s interactions with CBOs that could 
have been stronger and may be related to bottlenecks including lack of capacity, low follow-up on 
activities, or lack of a connection among actors. “Destroyed value” refers to negative assessments of the 
organizations’ interactions with CDLO and is associated with reputational risks for CDLO and/or 
actions that generate conflicts between organizations and/or individuals. “New opportunities for value 
generation” refers to CBO proposals for process optimization, improvement of individual living 
conditions, and/or new forms of action for the organizations. Finally, “territorial competitiveness” is 
understood as a shared perspective regarding the territory based on elements such as endogenous 
development potential, valuation of the territory’s resources, relationships among the actors involved, 
and innovation. 
SAMPLE
The evaluation team applied six criteria to select the 12 municipalities across nine departments, which 
made up the qualitative sample for the evaluation: geographic coverage, level of execution, diversity of 
activities, access to corridors, CDLO funding, and private sector investment.30 
The evaluation team conducted 101 semi-structured interviews, ten group sessions (focus group and 
social mapping), and ten ethnographic tours between February 8 and April 19, 2021.31 The team
collected information from the actors involved in CDLO activities: CBOs, the CDLO team, the 
territorial and national government implementers, and commercial partners.32 The topics addressed in 
the different interviews, sessions, and ethnographic tours were defined according to the characteristics 
of each question, the conceptual and analytical criteria established in the evaluation design matrix, and 
the relevance of the stakeholders for different aspects. 
ANALYSIS 
The evaluation team analyzed the qualitative information at two levels: 1) coding of the transcripts using 
Nvivo Release 12 software according to a codebook divided into 19 categories (four cross-cutting, 14 
thematic, and one synthetic),33 which organized the interviewees’ assessments according to conceptual 
criteria of the evaluation questions as defined in the evaluation matrix; and 2) a thematic analysis plan 
which supported coding of 121 transcripts, through which 55 thematic reports were generated. The 
evaluation team also generated 11 territorial reports. These reports formed the basis for creating 
analytical matrices and reports by question and corridor, text analysis, and four case studies that 
examined good practices associated with the different components in different territories.34 Finally, the 
30 El Tambo (Piloto), Puerto Libertador, San José del Guaviare, Tarazá, Samaniego, Guapi, Timbiquí, El Tarra, San José del 
Fragua, La Macarena, Tumaco and Valle de Guamuez (See Annex VI, Interviews and Group Activities Section, Table 9, page 
231).
31 Ethnographic tours are a methodology for field visits. The evaluation team used the tours to learn about CDLO activities and 
their progress, which included observation and ethnographic interviews with the population. The tours in the corridors were 
mainly focused on infrastructure, productive activities, and cultural, sports or communications collectives. 32 See Annex VI. Data Sources, Interviews and Group Activities Section. 33 The codebook is shown in Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, Qualitative Data Analysis section. 34 See Annex II. Supplemental Analysis and Data. The case studies sought to describe and understand in depth a significant 
experience for the community and for CDLO, considering both positive elements and aspects that could be strengthened. The 
cases were chosen intentionally, not randomly, seeking to examine a diversity of activities and contexts. Four case studies were 
chosen in which one or more evaluation questions were explored in depth according to the specific characteristics of each 
case. The Guapi case study addresses evaluation questions 2 and 5; Samaniego 3, 4 and 5; San José de Fragua 2 and 3; and Valle 
del Guamúez 1 and 3.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 14
evaluation team used visualizations such as word clouds to analyze texts by identifying the most relevant 
words. 
QUANTITATIVE COMPONENT
The evaluation team used a quantitative approach to establish the experience, achievements, and results 
of CBO participation, drawing on information that CBO directors and members provided. The directors 
and members are the direct beneficiaries of the CDLO Activity and are, therefore, best suited to 
account for their CBO´s participation in the Activity. To this end, the evaluation team designed two 
surveys to examine relevant topics related to various aspects of each question as defined in the 
evaluation design matrix. A director survey focused on characterizing CBO directors, exploring CBO 
characteristics and capacities in detail, and the description and contributions of the activities CDLO 
supported. A member survey focused on the characterization of the members and the CBO, detailing 
the day-to-day links between the members and the CBO and the characteristics and contributions of the 
activities CDLO supported. The evaluation team asked similar questions in both surveys, which allowed 
the team to compare the perspectives of the two informant types. The evaluation team identified 
directors and members from lists compiled by the Activity and supplemented them with information 
gathered by the independent firm in charge of applying the surveys.
SAMPLE
The evaluation team planned a census to administer the survey of CBO directors, which resulted in the 
application of 309 director surveys.35 For CBO members, the evaluation team conducted 1,090 surveys, 
with an average of 3.5 members surveyed per CBO, based on a non-probabilistic sample design.36 The 
data was gathered by the firm IPSOS from May 1 to August 5, 2021, across 37 municipalities, 35 
corridors, and nine departments.37
ANALYSIS 
The evaluation team applied descriptive statistics in the quantitative analysis, which allowed the team to 
estimate differences by type of CBO, region, and component. The evaluation team also performed 
statistical regression analyses to find associations between variables and carried out network analyses to 
understand the relationships among CBOs.38 Finally, the evaluation team used network analyses to
identify synergies and linkages among CBOs and define these connections as elements that affected or 
enabled the strengthening of licit economy clusters, which was the expected result of CDLO. 
35 For the Census of CBOs, 73 percent of the CBOs were surveyed. The details on the CBO director sample and data 
collection are shown in Annex VI. Data Sources. 36 Since the direct beneficiaries of the CDLO are the CBOs, the registered contact information is that of the relevant CBO, not 
of its members. The evaluation team did not have contact information for most of the people registered as members of the 
organizations and, for this reason, applied a non-probabilistic sampling method. That means that the selection of the members 
was not random but used a snowball or referral methodology. The details of the sample design are included in Annex VI. Data 
Sources, Survey section. 37 These municipalities, corridors, and departments correspond to those where the CBOs director surveys were effectively 
applied. 
38 The purpose is to understand the partnerships in terms of linkages, collaborative work, and synergies generated among 
CBOs that have an impact on the strengthening of clusters of licit economic activities. To estimate the results of the 
intervention, the evaluation team sought to establish the relationship between variables using regression models, including 
ordinary least squares, logit, ordered logit, multinomial logit, and Poisson regression. Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, 
Quantitative Methodology section includes the quantitative methodologies applied to each of the evaluation questions and a 
description of each. 
15 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The evaluation team complemented the evidence gathered in surveys with data from secondary sources, 
including figures from the Activity's monitoring system, which is called Mission. In particular, the 
evaluation team drew on data from the implementing partner’s data management system (called 
Monitor) that tracked CBO sales, partnerships, and organizational performance and on official statistics 
from the municipal level published by public entities, including the National Administrative Department 
of Statistics, the National Planning Department, and the Ministry of Defense. In addition, the evaluation
used the National Administrative Department of Statistics Population Census data disaggregated by 
CDLO corridors. These sources enriched the evidence and findings gathered from primary sources. 
Moreover, they allowed the evaluation team to define and compare the corridors where CDLO 
operated and other similar geographic areas in terms of socioeconomic context, levels of violence, 
security, and access to basic services.
GEOGRAPHIC COMPONENT 
The geographic component’s purpose was to identify the spaces where CBOs engage with one another. 
The geographic approach created ten social cartographies through a qualitative geographic tool that 
invites participants to develop a representation of the territory collectively.39 The analyses included 
integrating qualitative and quantitative data into maps to analyze the dynamics of these variables in the 
territory.40 
TRIANGULATION 
The evaluation team triangulated data from the different methodologies applied (quantitative, qualitative, 
and geographic) among survey respondents, interviewees, and participants in group activities and 
primary and secondary sources. The evaluation team included quantitative, qualitative, and geographic 
evidence throughout the report. This evidence is representative of the contributions of actors who 
participated in the evaluation and often shared similar information or themes, allowing the evaluation 
team to identify a general tendency. In other words, the evidence presented is not based on single, 
individual positions but represents responses that were repeated and reiterated by survey respondents, 
interviewees, and focus group participants. 
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY 
The evaluation faced limitations. The team was not able to access any centralized list of CBO member 
names and contact information. The evaluation team, therefore, implemented a snowball methodology 
to establish the number of CBO members and to identify and contact three or four members of each 
CBO who knew the CDLO Activity. This meant that the CBO member's survey sample was not 
randomly selected, and a probabilistic design was impossible. This also made identifying, finding, and 
engaging with CBO members difficult. Other challenges included delays in initiating fieldwork and being 
unable to reach all the municipalities due to mobility restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, 
the national strike of 2021, and security issues. Insufficient information on CBOs’ economic activity (in 
39 Focus group participants were grouped according to the CDLO activity in which they were involved and were given maps of 
the corridor where their activity takes place. Participants placed visual elements on a map to describe the activities that have 
been developed in their territory and to identify variation and changes over time.
40 The detailed methodology is shown in Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, Spatial Analysis Approach section.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 16
particular, quantities produced, revenues, costs, and profits) represented a limitation for a more precise 
analysis of CBOs’ economic performance. 
RISKS OF THE EVALUATION 
One potential risk for the evaluation was the possibility that national government entities would not 
provide the information that the evaluation team requested. This would have limited the scope of the 
evaluation team´s characterization of and comparisons between municipalities targeted by CDLO and 
those not. A few public entities did not provide the requested information, but collecting the 
information sought through other publicly available studies was possible. 
Another potential risk was that the evaluation team would not be able to collect qualitative data and
that this would detract from the understanding of the situation that the team might gain by observing 
CDLO-targeted municipalities. Ultimately, however, the evaluation team was able to carry out field 
visits.
17 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS
This section contains the findings, conclusions, and recommendations from analyzing the qualitative, 
quantitative, and geographic data gathered for each evaluation question. This section has six subsections, 
one for each evaluation question. Each subsection uses the same structure: it begins by presenting the 
evaluation question (in red), followed by the findings, then the conclusions, and ends with the 
recommendations.
EFFECT OF THE CONTEXT ON THE CDLO
Q1: HOW HAVE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND POLITICAL CONTEXT IN CDLO AREAS 
AFFECTED THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FORMULATED 
ACTIVITIES?
FINDINGS 
F.1.1. The CDLO-targeted territories have high levels of poverty and violence, as well as the presence 
of armed groups and illicit crops. The municipalities in which CDLO operates have high poverty levels 
compared to non-target municipalities in the same departments. In 2018, multidimensional poverty was 
15 percentage points higher, according to the National Administrative Department of Statistics database. 
In addition, social services coverage is insufficient. For example, in 12 of the 51 municipalities where 
CDLO operates, less than 5 percent of the population has access to higher education. In only two 
municipalities, 16 percent and 20 percent of the population reach this level of education. Additionally, in 
CDLO municipalities, between 26 percent and 50 percent of the population is earning income, including 
through self-employment. 
The eight security indicators in Table 1 reflect poorer security conditions in CDLO municipalities than 
in non-CDLO municipalities, except for indicators relating to common injuries and those related to illicit 
mining and illicit drugs.41 There are significant differences in extortion rates across CDLO regions, with 
the highest rates found in the Central region. There are also substantial differences in the prevalence of 
illegal miners, with the highest prevalence of illegal mining occurring in the Northern region.
41 The indicators refer to the average incidence of each indicator occurring in the municipalities of each region.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 18
Exhibit 1: CDLO regions and corridors
SOURCE: CDLO – PREPARED BY MEL ACTIVITY
TABLE 1: INDICATORS ON SECURITY, PRESENCE OF ILLICIT CROPS, AND ILLICIT MINING (2018 - 2020 AVERAGE)42, 43
INDICATORS NON-CDLO MUNICIPALITIES1 CDLO MUNICIPALITIES
TOTAL TOTAL NORTH CENTER SOUTH
Common Injuries2 1.446*** 0.987 0.967* 1.240*** 0.676***
Murders2 0.379*** 0.843 1.162*** 0.534*** 0.953
42 The definitions and data sources of these indicators are presented in Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, Evaluation Design 
Matrix section 43 CDLO is divided into regions. These regions are the Southwest (comprising the departments of Nariño and Cauca); Central 
(comprising the departments of Caquetá, Putumayo, Meta, and Guaviare); and North (comprising the departments of Antioquia, 
Córdoba, and Norte de Santander).
19 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 1: INDICATORS ON SECURITY, PRESENCE OF ILLICIT CROPS, AND ILLICIT MINING (2018 - 
2020 AVERAGE)42, 43
INDICATORS NON-CDLO MUNICIPALITIES1 CDLO MUNICIPALITIES
TOTAL TOTAL NORTH CENTER SOUTH
Extortion2 0.176*** 0.224 0.207** 0.303*** 0.138**
Recruitment of Minors2 0.002*** 0.014 0.014 0.007 0.023
Forced Displacement2 7.0** 18.6 37.5*** 3.5*** 21.0
Massacres2 0.0011*** 0.0039 0.0054 0.0013* 0.0059
Killings of Social Leaders2 0.017*** 0.051 0.082** 0.036 0.042*
Presence of illegal armed groups 
(percentage) 0.598* 0.738 1.000*** 0.471** 0.846
Area of coca cultivation (hectare) 582.6*** 2,264.4 2,328.6 1,655.8* 3001.1
Eradicated Area (by hand, hectare) 87.1*** 1,411.9 1,078.8 1,455.6 1,662.3
Cocaine: recorded seizures 
(kilogram) 185.8*** 1,525.1 363.2 431.1* 4,028.4
Intervention Mines (number) 4.835 9.706 32.111** 0.373* 1.231**
1Non-CDLO municipalities are located in the same department in which CDLO operates but are not part of CDLO.
2 Rates per-1,000 inhabitants
Statistically significant differences exist between CDLO and non-CDLO municipalities, between Central and Northern regions, 
between Central and Southern regions, and between Northern and Southern regions: (*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1)
SOURCE: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (1 TO 3, 5, 10 TO 12), UNIT FOR INTEGRAL ATTENTION AND REPARATION TO THE VICTIMS (4 AND 6), INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT 
AND PEACE STUDIES (7 AND 8), INTEGRATED SYSTEM FOR MONITORING ILLICIT CROPS (9) 
Survey results reflect that 55.4 percent of CBO directors claimed that their vereda’s current security 
condition was “good” or “very good.” 80 percent of CBO directors and 73.3 percent of CBO members 
indicated that their vereda’s security condition had improved or remained the same since 2018. CBO 
directors’ perception of security in the Southern region was less positive at the time of the survey, with 
a statistically significant difference between director perceptions in the other two regions (Center and 
North). In addition, directors from the Southern region were less likely to indicate security conditions 
had improved since 2018. Finally, almost a fifth of CBO members were victims of a criminal act in the 12 
months before the survey, with extortion and robbery being the most common.
As reflected in Table 2, three out of ten CBO members indicated that illicit economic activities were 
present in their veredas. Of the CBO members surveyed, 34.4 percent indicated that illicit economic 
activities have increased since 2018, while 36.9 percent indicated that illicit economic activities have
decreased since 2018. However, the evaluation finds statistically significant differences in perceptions for 
members from the Central and Southern regions. While 25.1 percent of members from the Central 
region thought the prevalence of illicit economies had increased, 46 percent of members from the 
Southern region thought the prevalence of illicit economies had increased. In contrast, while 50 percent 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 20
of members from the Central region claimed that illicit economies had decreased, only 22 percent of 
members from the Southern region indicated these economies had decreased in prevalence.
TABLE 2: PRESENCE OF ILLEGAL CROP CULTIVATION, ILLEGAL GROUPS, AND ILLEGAL MINING 
(PERCENTAGE)
MEMBERS OF CBO 
CLAIMED THAT:
Q802. CURRENTLY, IN THE VEREDA,
THERE IS INDEED THE PRESENCE OF:
Q803. SINCE 2018, DO YOU CONSIDER IT 
HAS:
Increased Decreased Remained the same
Illegal Cultivation 32.8 34.4 36.9 22.6
Illegal Groups 24.1 26.9 25.4 39.4
Illegal Mining 4.7 24.0 36.0 36.0
SOURCE: SURVEY OF CBO MEMBERS
CBO members perceived a lower presence of armed groups than the prevalence of illicit economic 
activities, including illegal cultivation and illegal mining. While 26.9 percent of CBO members believed 
that the presence of armed groups increased since 2018, 25.4 percent claimed it had decreased. Again, 
the difference in perception between the Central and Southern areas is statistically significant: 33 
percent of CBO members from the Central region believed that the presence of armed groups is 
decreasing. In comparison, only 17 percent of CBO members in the Southern area believed the same. 
One out of ten CBO members agreed and strongly agreed that “carrying weapons is common” in their 
vereda.44 Fewer than one in ten members agreed that paying bribes is well-regarded. The evaluation
found mixed perceptions on how coca, poppy, and marijuana production affect families of producers of 
these crops and communities. Nearly six out of ten CBO members claimed that coca, poppy, and 
marijuana should not be grown because they are illegal. Over six out of ten believed that their 
production negatively affects families of crop producers and communities.
F.1.2. The security conditions of CDLO-targeted territories affected the operation of the activity, 
particularly concerning ease of entering the territory, scheduling interventions, and self-protection
actions. The actions of illegal groups affected CDLO's activities in at least three ways. First, they 
hindered CDLO's ability to intervene in the territories. For example, CDLO began work in El Tarra 
municipality in Norte de Santander three years later than planned due to the presence of illegal groups 
in the area. Second, the presence of armed groups sometimes imposed delays or cause activities to be 
rescheduled. Third, it caused the CLDO Activity to implement safety measures already used by the 
inhabitants of the areas in a crucial effort to develop its activities and protect CDLO staff, partners, and 
the broader community. An executor explained that in response to security conditions: 
…we decided to suspend the workday. Since the paper said that an armed strike was beginning ...what we did 
as an organization was to take preventive measures to avoid putting our personnel at risk. We avoid going alone, 
44 The five answers options for this question are: i) strongly disagree; ii) disagree; iii) not disagree not agree; iv) agree and v) 
strongly agree. 
21 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
...we always go with personnel who know and report who is going and what kind of communication elements we 
carry. Interview with executor. Puerto Libertador, Villanueva – Juan José- La Rica.
The survey found that 58.3 percent of CBO directors “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following 
statement: in response to the security challenges in this area, CDLO has made the necessary adjustments in the 
execution of its activities.
F.1.3. CDLO operates mostly in areas of the corridors that have a lower presence of illicit crop 
cultivation, which has helped generate clusters of licit economies. The evaluation team found that the 
location of illicit economies determines the location of CDLO activities. Exhibit 2 shows that CDLO 
activities are concentrated in areas where the density of coca cultivation per square kilometer is low or 
medium. CDLO’s activities generate clusters of licit economic activities in the corridors near coca￾producing areas. CBOs operate in safer areas where communities face fewer risks and restrictions on 
productive activities. Operating in these areas makes CDLO’s access feasible. A national-level CDLO 
officer told the evaluation team that: “there are illicit crops along the corridors, although to a lesser 
extent in the areas where CDLO activities are carried out.” 
CDLO contributes to enhancing complementary relations between different types of CBOs. These 
relationships, in turn, create synergies that strengthen licit activities in specific areas of the territory (the 
evaluation examines this dynamic further in the findings associated with Question 5).
Exhibit 2: Social mapping of the Pie de Monte San Jose Corridor
SOURCE: SOCIAL MAPPING EXERCISE WITH CBO BENEFICIARIES
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 22
F.1.4. Communities have mostly positive expectations regarding the effects of the peace agreement, and 
this has helped shape the definition of CDLO activities. The Peace Agreement has renewed optimism 
and influenced positive security condition perceptions. State presence in the territories consolidates 
participatory planning processes and execution of territorial development projects. A CBO director in 
San José de Fragua told the evaluation team, We can now access practically the entire site; we couldn’t do it 
in the past. We couldn't get out of the city center up to certain veredas. We started this dream of tourism here 
in the department. 
F.1.5. Despite the implementation of the PDETs, CDLO-targeted territories continue to be less 
accessible to public goods and services (including the internet) and exhibit lower institutional capacity 
than non-CDLO-targeted municipalities of the same region. This affects the establishment, results, and 
sustainability of CDLO activities. In most of the municipalities where CDLO operates, less than 5 
percent of households have access to the Internet. Water supply coverage exceeds 75 percent in only 
three municipalities. In most municipalities, between 75 percent and 100 percent of households have 
access to electricity, but in eight municipalities, this percentage is as low as 50 percent (see Exhibit 3). 
Low access to public goods and services is a historical and structural condition of CDLO-targeted 
municipalities. The implementation of PDETs is expected to mitigate these conditions. GoC 
implementation of PDETs, however, lagged due to issues of political will, COVID-19, and budget 
availability during the period covered by this evaluation. 
 
Exhibit 3 Map of household internet coverage in CDLO corridors
SOURCE: NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS – PREPARED BY MEL ACTIVITY
Low coverage of basic services in the municipalities influences CDLO’s activities. For example, in some 
veredas, freezers provided the ability to store fish longer without spoiling, allowing fishers to obtain a 
better price. Intermittent electricity, however, meant that CDLO also needed to procure solar panels to 
operate the freezers. 
Low levels of internet coverage also limit the scope of CDLO activities, as in many territories it is 
impossible to expand CDLO training or technical assistance through virtual means. 
23 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
CDLO municipalities have low municipal performance compared to non-CDLO municipalities of the 
same region, as measured by the National Planning Department's indicator for municipal performance.45
The indicator stands at 52.2 percent for non-CDLO municipalities and 46.7 percent for CDLO 
municipalities. This low municipal performance restricts CDLO municipalities’ access to public, private, 
and international resources to carry out territorial development interventions.
F.1.6. CDLO's interactions with local actors to understand the territory and leverage previous 
knowledge and experiences allows for the design of activities aligned to the needs and nuanced context 
of the territory. To properly understand the territory and co-define activities that align with the 
productive vocation of the territory, CDLO implements participatory methodologies with CBOs, 
starting with community experiences in productive agricultural or fishing activities and identifying new 
economic opportunities. 
To create relevant synergies when defining activities, CDLO leverages previous processes. For instance, 
the Activity uses the participatory diagnoses of the Agency for Territorial Renewal (ART), the 
institutional vehicles that implement the PDETs, the Comprehensive National Program for the 
Substitution of Illicit Crops, and the Action Plans for Regional Transformation. Various officials explained 
this alignment: 
The production line prioritized by Territories of Opportunities... to be supported and strengthened is beekeeping, 
it is one of the production lines that were contemplated to be strengthened within the PDETs economic 
reactivation cornerstone. Interview with a local official of a national government entity. Tarazá, Tarazá – La 
Caucana – San Miguel.
Every time the international cooperation came to the territory, the first thing we looked for ways that they aligned 
with Action Plans for Regional Transformation or PDET, ...so we didn't start a participatory exercise with the 
communities again.... but, above all, how we legitimize the process of participation of the population. CDLO 
certainly joins a process. In 2019... an exercise of analysis of the initiatives, a work plan 2020-2021 was made. 
Interview with a local official of a national government entity. Florencia.
Seven out of ten CBO directors indicated that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that CDLO's activities 
are aligned with the needs of their vereda and their CBOs.46 A staff member at the national level of 
CDLO said that: We didn’t end up creating but working on what is already there.... it gives us elements because 
the communities already have a radius of action and know their territory in this dynamic; for example, public 
order, the transit of crops or what can affect them.
F.1.7. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted the implementation of CDLO, requiring 
the design of new initiatives and the adaptation of others, which resulted in delays. The pandemic has 
also had a negative impact on market conditions, potentially jeopardizing the results of some of the 
interventions. In response to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, CDLO adapted previously 
designed initiatives (e.g., sending packets of physical materials to workshop participants rather than 
conducting face-to-face workshops). CDLO also implemented new initiatives such as conducting virtual 
trainings (albeit limited by internet access), financing for acquiring electronic devices and securing stable 
45 The National Planning Department measures municipal performance with an indicator that includes tax resources of local 
government and conditions of the municipality that delimit the scope of management and the provision of goods and services.
46 Source: Survey of CBO Directors.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 24
connectivity, provisioning digital tools such as videos and virtual meetings for follow-up and technical 
assistance, and promoting access to digital banking services. However, the pandemic still caused delays 
and disruptions in the design and execution of activities. For example, CBOs in the municipality of La 
Macarena in Meta could not develop tourism activities due to domestic and international travel 
restrictions. In addition, the National Learning Service (SENA) suspended its visits to the territories, and 
CBO members without internet access could not participate in meetings and workshops. 
Mobility restrictions during the pandemic hindered CDLO activities. For example, construction and 
practical skills training efforts could not use online tools, so the desired products and results did not 
materialize in some cases. Moreover, communication and coordination between CDLO, beneficiaries, 
institutional actors, and the private sector decreased. As a result, monitoring, execution, and follow-up 
of CDLO activities were affected. A CDLO territorial staff member described the effects of the 
COVID-19 pandemic as follows: 
There were a lot of restrictions, and it slowed down the design of activities and the interaction with communities. 
We are a program with a lot of interaction and a lot of dialogue with communities, local actors, institutions, and 
the private sector. This was somehow lost during COVID. Interview with CDLO territorial staff member.
Moreover, sales and distribution of agricultural and fishery products declined during the COVID-19 
pandemic, which put the economic activities of CBOs and families at risk and jeopardized the 
sustainability of CDLO interventions. A participant in a focus group in El Tambo expressed: We couldn't 
move around. Yes. The quarantine caught us in the middle of the harvest, so we lost a lot of chontaduro [an 
edible palm fruit] ... So, there were economic losses. Most of the crop was lost.
CONCLUSIONS
C.1.1. The differing context in CDLO municipalities, particularly the high rates of poverty and violence, 
the presence of armed groups, and the presence of illicit economies, determine the targeting, 
implementation, and results of CDLO activities, meaning that clusters of licit economies have been 
successfully created in areas with a lower presence of illicit crops cultivation (Findings 1.1, 1.2, and 
1.3).47
C.1.2. Even though CDLO municipalities often overlap with areas targeted for GoC development 
activities under Colombia’s 2016 Peace Agreement, the limitations of infrastructure and provision of 
basic services, as well as the low institutional capacity across CDLO municipalities, affected the results 
of the Activity (Findings 1.4 and 1.5). 
C.1.3. CDLO has been successful in adjusting the design and operation of the Activity to the 
characteristics of the territories, leveraging previous knowledge and experiences and adapting to 
changing contexts, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic (Findings 1.6 and 1.7).
RECOMMENDATIONS
R.1.1. Continue working to generate clusters of licit economies in the territories most affected by 
poverty and violence (Conclusion 1.1). 
47 According to the IP (see comments to this report) the idea of CDLO is to create the licit economic dynamic to expand it to 
adjacent areas with a higher coca concentration, while attracting labor to licit activities.
25 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
R.1.2. Publish a document systematizing the Activity's targeting process, including how strategic 
corridors, municipalities, and CBOs were selected; what was learned from this process; and 
recommendations for future similar activities (Conclusions 1.2 and 1.3). 
R.1.3. Manage alliances with the public and private sectors and with international development agencies 
to identify and articulate strategies to increase the access of CBOs and communities to Information and 
Communications Technology and strengthen their digital skills (Conclusion 1.2). 
R.1.4. Analyze and systematize elements of contingency plans that allow CDLO to respond quickly and 
effectively to future challenges that may arise, including strikes, pandemics, and climate events, among 
other events that may limit mobility, communication, and the performance of economic and social 
activities in a territory (Conclusion 1.3).
CAPACITY GENERATION
Q2: WHAT ARE THE CAPACITY-BUILDING EFFECTS SEEN IN COMMUNITY GROUPS AND PRODUCER 
ORGANIZATIONS THAT BENEFITED FROM CDLO’S ACTIVITIES? 
FINDINGS
F.2.1. CDLO strengthened JACs' managerial capacities for the efficient implementation of infrastructure 
initiatives, including strengthening human, physical, financial resource management, and contracting 
formality. For 60.8 percent of JACs, the infrastructure initiative with CDLO was their first experience 
executing a road infrastructure project. Before beginning infrastructure initiatives, the JACs identified 
organizational weaknesses to overcome, which were related to the legal, planning, and administrative 
requirements for accessing CDLO resources or the resources of any other entity.
Learning during the process [of road construction] led boards to start making small contracts, which has made it 
easier for them to submit documents and manage their accounting. So, we are very grateful to CDLO for 
strengthening the administrative part of the work. Focus Group, Beneficiaries
CDLO's trainings supported financial, engineering, and environmental competencies and compliance 
requirements for infrastructure initiatives, which enabled JACs to manage resources more efficiently. 
These lessons were particularly salient for hiring processes, salary payments, material purchases, and 
infrastructure construction. JAC members described in interviews how their participation in road 
improvement initiatives allowed them to gain experience in negotiating the purchase price of quality 
products, using appropriate construction methods, and learning about requirements to comply with tax 
regulations. For one JAC, these lessons were described as follows:
We, given all these teachings, all this learning [we learned] to contract, negotiate good quality products that 
surpassed the quality threshold. We even started negotiating with the engineer and asked him for a discount.
Interview with CBO. San José del Fragua, Piedemonte San José.
The average score on the JACs' Capacity Building Index (CBI) that was calculated for the evaluation 
reached 53.7 points out of a maximum value of 100. Among the five dimensions of the CBI, the highest 
average JAC capacity score was achieved for governance capacity (91.6 points), followed by 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 26
administrative capacity (60.0), physical and human resources management (56.5), and financial resources 
management (51.6). Conversely, the capacity with the lowest average score was planning (41.6).48 
By applying a linear regression model, the evaluation team found that participating in the infrastructure 
component of CDLO is associated with a six-point increase in the CBI score and strengthened human, 
physical, and financial resource management with an increase from seven to eight points. 
F.2.2. While JACs reported that they have the capacity to continue executing infrastructure initiatives, 
fewer than half have done this. While almost all CBOs participating in CDLO infrastructure initiatives 
claimed they could bid for new projects (91.8 percent), only 38.0 percent of CBOs have executed other 
infrastructure initiatives after participating in the partnership with CDLO. CDLO's actions to encourage 
CBOs to obtain resources from other entities and to create new partnerships for the execution of 
infrastructure projects that benefit the community is evident in the following statement from one JAC:
They teach us how to develop works, so we aren't going to depend only on Territorio [CDLO], but suddenly 
another work comes up, and we can apply for each work, right? Interview with CBO Puerto Libertador, 
Villanueva – Juan José – La Rica.
During the execution of public infrastructure projects, CDLO, as part and condition of the effectiveness 
of the intervention model, requires JACs to hire engineering and accounting professionals who play a 
central role in implementing the projects and help strengthen the JACs. However, one JAC member 
who was interviewed expressed uncertainty if the JAC would have the resources to contract such 
professionals in future initiatives, which could hinder the effectiveness of the JAC’s actions. 
F.2.3. CDLO has strengthened the technical and organizational capacity of producer CBOs in the 
creation and consolidation of businesses. CDLO has been able to achieve this through accompaniment 
and training and by incorporating commercial partnerships with private sector partners. Producer CBOs 
recognize the importance of CDLO-supported capacity building. Of the CBO members surveyed, 76.5 
percent stated that CDLO supported producer CBOs in strengthening or creating projects or 
businesses. Of this group, 88 percent rated this support as “very good” or “good.” 76.5 percent of CBO 
members surveyed, also said that CDLO has improved producer CBOs’ capacities to organize and 
document their production processes. Additionally, 48.5 percent of producer CBO directors stated that 
during their participation in CDLO, their CBO made important changes in their products or services. 
Among producer CBOs, 46.5 percent conducted design and implementation exercises for new business 
ventures or services during the CDLO implementation period (2018-2021). 
On the CBI, the average score for producer CBOs is 65.6 points out of a maximum value of 100. 
Among the five dimensions that make up this index, the results for producer CBOs range from 
governance capacity at 89.1 points, followed by administrative capacity at 74.5 points, financial resource 
management at 64.6 points, planning capacity at 63.2 points, and human and physical resource 
management at 59.8 points. 
48 To quantitatively measure CBO capacity building, without isolating the effects of CDLO, the evaluation calculated a 
composite indicator that groups five types of capacities: governance, administration, planning, human and physical resource 
management, and financial resource management. Although the index is only measured at one point in time, the categories 
assess whether there were positive changes during the CDLO implementation period. There are variables that explicitly include
periods of time.
27 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The evaluation identified a link between increased CBI scores in governance and administrative 
capacities and participation in CDLO economic activities. The evaluation team found that participation in 
CDLO economic activities is associated with a four-point increase in the governance capacity of 
producer CBOs. The qualitative data collected shows that participating in CDLO projects is a significant 
experience that strengthens organizational capacity through hands-on implementation experience. One 
example of such learning-by-doing is that CDLO´s intervention helps organizations make decisions 
regarding production volumes and schedules; differentiation of their products, prices, buyers, internal 
rules for the collection of products; and the distribution of profits. One member of a producer CBO 
said:
[Commercial partners say ] We need you to strengthen that (…) and that is what they are doing, acquiring 
knowledge, skills(…); because they (commercial partner members) also envision our organization in a few years 
at a high level of capacity, already generating new projects, executing the projects and, of course, with the 
knowledge of the territory (…) so, the idea is to strengthen all the [existing] ventures and generate more.
Interview with CBO. San José de Fragua, Piedemonte San José.
The evaluation found that 31.9 percent of producer CBO directors acknowledge the benefits of CDLO 
support regarding organizational aspects. In addition, participation in the economic component is 
associated with a seven-point increase in management skills. Administrative capacities include registering 
and formalizing a business to obtain legal status, creating a procedure for procuring goods and services, 
and putting inventory and control systems in place for their property, goods, assets, or fixed resources, 
all of which are essential for producer CBOs. 
Another quantitative source used to analyze CBO capacity building is the Organizational Performance 
Index (OPI), created by USAID and used by CDLO. This index measures the overall performance of 
organizations in four dimensions: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability. Table 3 shows 
that, on average, CBOs started at the lowest OPI level (level one) with an average score of 1.11 across 
the eight variables analyzed. In the follow-up, which was conducted 12 to 18 months after baseline 
measurement, improvements are evident in all variables and the average overall score (which rose to 
1.81). Learning and resource variables show the most significant increase in scores. The differences 
found are statistically significant in all cases.
TABLE 3: CHANGES IN AVERAGE OPI
DIMENSION VARIABLE BASELINE MONITORING SIGNIFICANCE
Efficiency
Provision of Services 1.0625 1.53125 ***
Scope 1.09375 1.8125 ***
Sustainability
Resources 1.03125 2.0625 ***
Social Capital 1.25 1.796875 ***
Relevance
Target Population 1.1875 1.71875 ***
Learning 1.0625 1.9375 ***
Effectiveness Results 1.09375 1.890625 ***
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 28
TABLE 3: CHANGES IN AVERAGE OPI
DIMENSION VARIABLE BASELINE MONITORING SIGNIFICANCE
Organizational 
Standards 1.15625 1.75
***
AVERAGE 1.11 1.81 ***
Notes: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
CBO OPI expresses a value in whole numbers for each of its four dimensions and eight variables, from one to four. Value one 
reflects a low level of performance; level two IS a basic level, three acceptable, and four outstanding. The OPI was evaluated 
for all CBO partners.
SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON DATA REPORTED BY CDLO FOR THE 64 ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION. 
Despite these improvements, CBOs continue to show low organizational performance. The evaluation 
team found that for each dimension of the OPI, most CBOs remain at level one or have moved up from 
level one to level two. On average, 32 percent of analyzed organizations score at level one, while 52 
percent have moved up to level two. In the follow-up, 10 percent of the organizations reached levels 
three or four on the OPI. It is worth noting that significant improvements likely require supporting and 
evaluating capacities over a longer period. 
TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT MOVED UP FROM OPI LEVEL 1 TO ANOTHER 
LEVEL FOR EACH ANALYZED VARIABLE
VARIABLE
1 TO 
1
2 TO 
1 
3 TO 
1 
4 TO 
1 
2 TO 
2 
2 TO 
3 
2 TO 
4 
3 TO 
3 
4 TO 
3 
4 TO 
4 
2 TO 
3 
Scope 31% 53% 2% 5% 8% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Learning 23% 59% 11% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Social Capital 38% 44% 3% 0% 5% 3% 2% 2% 0% 3% 2%
Organizational 
Standards 39% 41% 5% 0% 6% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Target Population 42% 39% 3% 0% 6% 6% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0%
Provision of Services 53% 39% 3% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Resources 14% 70% 8% 5% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Results 16% 73% 2% 0% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AVERAGE 
PERCENTAGE 32% 52% 4% 1% 4% 4% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON DATA REPORTED BY CDLO FOR 64 ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION.
F.2.4. CDLO strengthened the commercial capacities of producer CBOs, in part by working with 
private sector partners through commercial partnerships. However, not all producer CBOs reported
current commercial agreements or increases in sales. In addition to technical and associational 
strengthening, CDLO supported the generation of commercial capacities, a process in which the 
29 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
producer CBOs began exploring and approaching the private sector to establish commercial 
agreements. One of the ways this occurred was by establishing commercial partnerships with private 
sector actors who already had experience in the business to be strengthened.
For the period analyzed, CDLO evaluation reports showed 82 commercial partnerships established in 
42 of the 48 economic activities.49 These partnerships leveraged an average contribution of 
COP$69,780,616 per activity, for a total of COP$4,675 million, of which 90 percent corresponded to 
in-kind contributions (such as labor associated with the strengthening process). Beneficiaries and allies 
(including commercial partners) may or may not contribute with resources, as CDLO does not have a 
defined matching contribution model nor a leverage target. For CDLO, however, it is desirable to 
achieve resource leverage. 
When analyzing the description of commercial partnerships according to CDLO reports, the evaluation 
found that these partnerships focused on strengthening and assisting in both production and commercial 
issues. The evaluation team constructed a word cloud to show CBO perceptions of the commercial 
partnerships (See Exhibit 4). In other words, the role of the partnerships in CDLO goes beyond the 
commercialization of products, becoming a strategy of accompaniment and strengthening the 
organization as a whole. 
Exhibit 4: Word cloud on commercial partnership support to the CBOs
SOURCE: PREPARED BY EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON DATE FROM CDLO MISSION AND SOCIAL MAPPING
Of the producer CBO directors surveyed, 91.5 percent acknowledged the economic benefits of 
CDLO’s support. In addition, the actors who participated in the evaluation thought that, in general, 
CDLO's economic component had enabled the identification of new economic opportunities; the 
creation or strengthening of linkages between producer CBOs, companies, and markets; and the 
promotion of commercial agreements, mainly at the local level. For example, one CBO said:
Let's say that the experience has been very successful because within the framework of the program(…) , it has 
opened the door for us to reach new areas commercially, so being able to work hand in hand with a commercial 
partner that offers us all the guarantee, increase volume, improve quality, because we have been improving the 
quality of the raw material we are exporting, it has been very positive for us. Interview with CBO.
The evaluation found that capacity building of producer CBOs is associated with a greater likelihood of 
reaching agreements for the commercialization of products. Regression modeling identified an 
association between capacity building and the number of economic or business agreements (productive 
49 The total number of activities covered by the evaluation is 129, of which 48 are economic activities. Of these, CDLO reports 
that 42 of them have established partnerships. Of the 82 partnerships, 67 have quantified contributions. 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 30
or commercial) held by a CBO. The evaluation also found that CBOs that have been established for a 
longer period and have a higher proportion of members from a recognized ethnic group yield a positive 
and statistically significant association with establishing economic agreements with other CBOs. 
Despite these advances, the survey conducted with productive CBO directors found that only 64.4 
percent of the organizations reported having generated income. Of those that generated income, only 
one-third reported having active economic or business agreements at the time of the survey. Productive 
CBOs not having established commercial agreements at the time of the survey could stem from these 
organizations not yet having reached a sufficient level of organizational maturity. However, when the 
evaluation team completed the collection of quantitative data in July 2021, of the 129 activities included 
in the sample, 71.3 percent had been fully executed, and 19.3 percent were slated for completion 
between August and December 2021. This may suggest that organizational maturity is not the cause of 
this gap, as in fully executed activities CBOs would have already strengthened the capacities that would 
enable them to establish commercial agreements. 
Of the producer CBOs that reported existing commercial agreements and income generation in the 
survey, 51.8 percent of those organizations had established commercial agreements with private 
companies, 35.2 percent with other community-based organizations, and three percent with public 
entities. CDLO assisted 62.8 percent of the CBOs in completing this type of partnership. More CBOs 
reported concluding agreements with other community organizations (68.4 percent of producer CBOs 
that generate income and have economic agreements) compared to agreements with private companies 
(46.4 percent of CBOs). 
Based on statistical exercises carried out with the information collected through the surveys, the 
evaluation team found four factors that significantly influenced the formalization of economic agreements 
with other entities: current agreements with private or community organizations; previous experience in 
agreements with other CBOs; being linked to a non-traditional productive activity; and receiving 
technical assistance in capacity building, machinery operation, and commercial services. 
The evaluation analysis of CDLO information sources also found that only some organizations reported 
that they were making current progress regarding commercialization. Sales data from CDLO shows that 
of the 48 economic activities included in this evaluation, only 23 had reported sales. Of these cases, 78 
percent reported sales in both the first year (baseline) and the monitoring year. This indicates that most 
organizations were already making sales, so the Activity’s support contributed to increasing annual sales. 
The reported increases in annual sales are equivalent to 254 percent, and the total value of the 
additional annual sales reported amounts to COP$3,931 million, 10 percent above the Activity’s overall 
target for sales (COP$3,468 million). While CDLO exceeded its overall target of additional annual sales, 
one out of three CBOs analyzed did not reach this target. 
The results of the additional sales generated within the framework of CDLO are noteworthy. For rural 
producer organizations, achieving sales represents one of their main challenges. Moreover, most 
producer organizations in Colombia do not engage in collective commercialization. In addition, two 
other factors demonstrate increased sales as having been achieved despite significant challenges, making 
sales growth particularly relevant. First, CDLO worked with productive chains that were relatively weak 
in the context of the territories targeted by CDLO. Second, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively 
impacted economic activities.
31 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 1. ANNUAL SALES REPORTED BY CDLO FOR 23 ACTIVITIES 
Minimum COP$ 696,600
Maximum COP$ 1,742,163,000
Median (Annual) COP$ 49,379,080
Average (Annual) COP$ 224,588,357
Median (Monthly) COP$ 4,114,923
Average (Monthly) COP$ 18,715,696
Despite progress in signing commercial agreements and increased sales, commercialization challenges 
persist. For example, some CBOs whose members are accustomed to traditional rural economies, face 
challenges in incorporating new technologies to achieve the volume and quality of the products 
demanded by potential commercial partners. In some cases, moreover, the prices offered for CBOs’ 
products are insufficient to cover production costs. This is especially true when poor infrastructure or 
high fuel prices drive up transportation costs. Furthermore, security conditions affect the access of 
potential commercial partners to the territories. The following quotes illustrate how these challenges 
hinder the progress of commercialization:
Well, conditions for producers are not the best. The involvement of private enterprise, as such, in this type of 
region is slight, to say the least, and almost zero due to the well-known security conditions and the same 
technological development challenges of the different products that come from the peasant economy. Interview 
with CDLO field-based staff.
Transportation, fuel, everything is expensive. So then, when the prices are low, we do not have security. Then 
prices change; today it is this price if it increases, tomorrow the price is even lower. Interview with traditional 
CBO.
F.2.5. CDLO has built other CBOs’ capacities to support and complement territorial development, 
including by strengthening their planning processes and diversifying their activities. However, challenges 
remain for CBOs to continue offering their services beyond CDLO. Other CBOs reported receiving 
CDLO capacity-building support most frequently in planning compared to other capacities (e.g., 
administrative, governance). Of the other CBO directors, 58.1 percent stated that CDLO supported 
their capacities in planning (e.g., principles of the organization, action plans, long-term or strategic plans, 
business or service lines). The average CBI score for other CBOs reached 73.7 points for this variable. 
This score is higher than that of producer CBOs (63.2 points) and JACs (41.6 points) for the same 
variable. In addition, of the other CBOs surveyed, 54.8 percent stated that during their participation in 
CDLO, they made important changes in the products and services they offered.50 
Other CBOs considered it desirable to promote their participation in developing the economic and 
infrastructure components of CDLO in conjunction with producer CBOs and JACs. In that sense, the 
capacity building of other CBOs involved in territorial development has focused on support services for 
developing the economic and infrastructure components. However, sustainability challenges still exist.
50 Source: Survey of CBO Directors 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 32
For example, as part of other CBOs with strengthened capacities, digital production collectives need to 
find new CBOs to continue providing their services. 
F.2.6. Youth internship and training programs have been successful in strengthening the capacities of 
young people and enabling organizations to benefit from these strengthened capacities, promoting 
generational change. CBOs face a challenge related to generational change, given that 76.1 percent of 
their members are older than 30. CDLO has implemented activities to promote generational change in 
CBOs.51 The youth internship program supported by CDLO stands out among these activities, as it has 
achieved knowledge transfers through exchanges and internships among regions and even in foreign
countries. For example, young people from the CBOs ASOACASAN (San José de Fragua) and 
ASOPROCAF (Valle de Guamuez) were trained in post-harvest and cacao quality through international 
internships in Mexico and Spain and national internships in Arauca and Santander. Young participants 
committed to returning to their CBO once the internship ended; when they did so, they used their 
experience to strengthen their CBO. In Samaniego, 35 young participants, sons and daughters of 
ABADES producers, were trained in coffee cupping, which helped them to improve the quality of CBOs 
products and involve young people in traditional productive activities. This especially helped in receiving 
recognition from the CBO, particularly by older members.
F.2.7. CDLO has built capacities and fostered leadership renewal in CBOs; however, challenges remain, 
including improving management and increasing female and youth leadership.52 According to one CDLO 
official: Turning [CBOs] into effective and reliable partners implies that several members of the organizations 
start to stand out for their management qualities and capacities, resulting from empowerment, constantly 
interacting with the public and private sector. The evaluation team measured this result based on the 
CDLO-02-C indicator: the number of local community organization representatives actively participating 
in and influencing the implementation of local and regional peace activities and planning and development 
activities. In the period evaluated, this indicator showed a compliance rate of 109 percent, reflecting a 
higher-than-expected result, with 1,400 CBO members holding a leadership role. It is worth noting that 
according to CDLO’s approach, strengthening leadership does not necessarily have to be reflected in 
public policies at the local and national levels, but may be reflected in participation in a range of other 
spaces. 
Most CBO directors are men (62 percent on average and 67 percent in JACs). The evaluation found 
that women’s participation as directors is lower (44.6 percent) than women’s participation as members 
of the social base of organizations (46.6 percent). The highest female participation rate in management 
positions is in the Southern Region at 43 percent and in producer CBOs at 57 percent. Some 16.1 
percent of CBO directors are young people (defined for the survey as people under 30 years of age). 
The data found no differences by region regarding the participation of young people. By type of 
organization, the involvement of young people in management positions is greater in other CBOs at 33.8 
percent. This is an expected result, as a higher proportion of young people (32 percent) participate in 
these organizations compared to producer CBOs (16.8 percent) and JACs (26.3 percent).53
51 Generational change refers to the effective participation of young people in the CBOs and in exercising leadership (instead of 
the same individuals, often middle-aged or elderly people, continuing to lead the organizations for extended periods of time. 52 Leadership renewal refers to the effective participation of young people in decision making in the CBOs, however CDLO did 
not define a specific target for youth and women´s participation. 
53 Source: Survey of CBO Directors 
33 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Among CBO members surveyed, 65.1 percent feel strongly represented by CBO leaders, and 61.8 
percent “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statement: “The people who represent CBO 
members in spaces outside the CBO have always been the same.” Members reporting low turnover of 
leaders indicates opportunities for leadership renewal in the organizations. The finding may also imply a 
need for leadership renewal given that 61.6 percent of CBO members surveyed believed their 
organization's leaders or directors could improve their management. These results do not differ by 
region or type of CBO.54 
While many CBOs might benefit from leadership renewal, not all members currently possess the 
required skills to carry out leadership functions. For example, when presented with the scenario, “If 
today you were appointed by your CBO as its representative in a discussion space with an external 
partner, you would feel confident in performing such a task,” 59.5 percent of members said that they 
“agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement. This suggests that four out of ten members would need 
to strengthen their skills to fill a leadership role effectively.55 
One of CDLO's strategies to allow renewal and broadening of leadership in CBOs is the organization or 
creation of working committees. For 62.5 percent of JAC directors, this is one of the important changes 
their organization has undergone during the CDLO implementation period. In the case of producer 
CBOs, 55.8 percent of directors stated that the creation of working committees has been one of the 
most significant changes. In this type of CBO, work tends to fall exclusively on the directors, and 
creating working committees helps the CBOs exercise greater control over production volumes and 
quality to comply with commercial agreements. 
Among other CBOs, 41.9 percent of directors highlight the creation of working committees as one of 
the essential aspects promoted by CDLO, a lower percentage than producer CBOs. Lastly, when asked 
about the process of strengthening CBO management, 71.4 percent of the members indicated that with 
CDLO's support, communication between associates and leaders or directors has improved. In this 
regard, 86.1 percent of members rated the support provided by CDLO as “good’ or “very good.”56
F.2.8. Despite progress in generating associative capacities, challenges remain, including low trust and 
poor perception of collective work capacities. CDLO promotes collaborative work in all CBOs and 
seeks to democratize participation.57 Of the CBO members surveyed, 51.6 percent have high trust in 
other members of their organizations, 26.9 percent have some trust, while the remaining 21.5 percent 
said they have “low” or “no” trust in other members. Similarly, 54.6 percent of the surveyed members 
indicated that they think that the people in their CBO are willing to reach agreements and take joint 
actions to achieve a common goal. In addition, 9.5 percent believe there is some likelihood of achieving 
collaborative work, and the remaining 16 percent think it is “not very likely” or “not at all likely” to 
achieve this type of collaborative work. No significant regional differences are reflected in these 
54 Source: Survey of CBO Members. 55 Ibid. 56 Source: Survey of CBO Members and Directors. 57 CDLO promotes collaborative work and participation of more members of the organizations in their activities as factors that 
strengthen the capacities and achievements of the organizations. 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 34
variables. However, trust and willingness to work collaboratively are higher among members in 
producer organizations and other CBOs than for JACs.58 
Of CBO members surveyed, 80.6 percent stated that their organization faces internal challenges 
associated with organizational processes. Ranked in order of percentage from high to low, internal 
challenges include individuals lack the necessary training for organizational processes (37.7 percent), 
teamwork is challenging when organizing work groups (30.6 percent), individuals in the CBO are very 
distrustful (29.5 percent), and people in the CBO are not interested in participating (25.9 percent). On 
the other hand, 40.5 percent of the surveyed members stated that there are external risks to their 
organizational processes. The risks identified included that CBOs do not conduct outreach to obtain 
external support for their work (20.1 percent), authorities do not facilitate organizational processes 
(15.3 percent), and political groups make consolidation of organizational processes difficult (12.9 
percent).59 
Exhibit 5: Percentage of CBOs’ internal organizational challenges
SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON CDLO MISSION AND SOCIAL MAPPING
Conflict resolution is important to CBO members in carrying out collective action. Of the CBO 
members surveyed, 58.3 percent state that CBO participation in CDLO has “improved their 
organization’s capacity to resolve conflict.” Producer CBOs and other CBOs are 11 percentage points 
more likely than JACs to say that their conflict resolution abilities have improved.60 Of the CBO 
members surveyed, 86.7 percent rate CDLO support for conflict resolution as “good” or “very good.”61 
F.2.9. In terms of capacity building, CDLO contributes to generating capacity for a culture of legality and 
formality among CBOs, an aspect that could be addressed more directly in the implementation of the 
activity. CDLO's infrastructure component encourages formality and legality on the part of the JACs. 
Proof of this capacity is evident by JACs formally hiring staff and suppliers (with contracts and payment 
58 For example, in the response "they trust the other members of the organization very much" the difference between the 
producer CBOs and the JACs is -0.17 and the difference between the JACs and the Other CBOs is 0.19. Both differences are 
significant (p-value<0.05). 59 Source: Survey of CBO Members. 60 The differences are statistically significant. Producer CBOs – JACs (p-value 0.00) and Other CBOs – JAC (p-value (0.02). 61 Source: Survey of CBO Members.
35 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
of social security benefits) and in their compliance with health, environmental, and occupational safety 
regulations. One CBO member explained that,
We [requested an estimate] in several hardware stores because if they complied, in the first place, with the 
requirements, so that everything is legal, the quarries, in the same way, the part of the provision, the part of the 
equipment to provide these workers with all their safety equipment. Also, in the area of hiring workers who are 
affiliated, they have social security. So, all of this has been monitored and followed up so that everything is in 
place. Focus Group CBO. Valle del Guamuez, La Hormiga.
Through the CDLO economic component, the identification of formal markets to commercialize 
producer CBO products has also demonstrated to organizations the importance of compliance with 
formal agreements, rules, regulations, and standards. One commercial partner stated: 
As we were saying at the beginning, to have solid commercial agreements that guarantee that when we have the 
products with the agreed characteristics and conditions, we will already have direct commercialization. Of course, 
I say, with minimal quality conditions and the characteristics established in the purchase and sale agreements.
Interview with a commercial partner. Puerto Libertador, Villanueva-Juan José- La Rica.
CONCLUSIONS
C.2.1. CDLO has strengthened the internal capacity of CBOs, demonstrating the relevance of its 
strengthening strategy, which is based on the direct participation of CBOs in the design and 
implementation of territorial development activities. In particular, JACs have gained the capacity to 
manage resources in executing infrastructure projects efficiently. Producer CBOs have worked on 
designing and implementing organizational and productive strategies to respond to market demands. 
Other CBOs have assumed a more active role in territorial development within their mission and vision 
framework. In addition, the strategy has strengthened young people’s capacities, and these youth have 
transferred capacity gains to their organizations. However, despite this progress, there is still a need to 
continue building the capacity (including technical capacity building) of CBOs in CDLO territories 
(Findings 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6). 
C.2.2. Regarding the commercial aspect, CDLO has strengthened CBOs’ capacity to identify and build 
commercial partnerships with local and regional private sector actors. However, many organizations do 
not have current commercial partnerships nor do they report increases in annual sales (Findings 2.4 and 
2.5). 
C.2.3. While CDLO has strengthened CBOs’ organizational capacity and reinforced the social fabric, 
challenges persist in strengthening trust, building willingness to work as a team, enabling conflict 
resolution, and encouraging leadership renewal (Findings 2.7 and 2.8).
C.2.4. CBO capacity-building processes promote a culture of legality and formality in CDLO corridors, 
and CDLO should continue pursuing and improving these processes (Finding 2.9).
RECOMMENDATIONS
R.2.1. Publish and disseminate a document systematizing the lessons learned from CDLO´s practical 
support model for CBOs, identifying good practices and generating recommendations for future support 
carried out by CDLO and/or other programs (Conclusion 2.1). 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 36
R.2.2. Continue strengthening the support, accompaniment, and follow-up to commercialization 
activities of producer CBOs to deepen and scale commercialization results by working jointly with 
private actors (Conclusion 2.2). 
R.2.3. Strengthen, as part of the integral support provided to CBOs, the accompaniment and training 
provided to CBOs in terms of conflict resolution, trust, teamwork, and possible leadership renewal 
(Conclusion 2.3). 
R.2.4. Publish and disseminate a document systematizing the design, implementation, and lessons learned 
from the training, internship, and exchange strategies targeting rural youth developed by CDLO 
(Conclusion 2.1). 
R.2.5. Design and implement internal and external communication strategies to specifically highlight the 
relevance and benefits of being part of the culture of legality in CDLO territories (Conclusion 2.4).
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Q3: HAS CDLO'S INTERVENTION BEEN EFFECTIVE IN CREATING A LOCAL ENVIRONMENT CONDUCIVE 
TO A LICIT ECONOMY IN THE TARGETED REGIONS?
FINDINGS
F.3.1. CDLO has contributed to strengthening the local economic conditions through improvements in 
road infrastructure that have reduced travel times and costs. Infrastructure improvements allow roads 
to be used in rainy seasons, reduce accidents and travel times, and prevent landslides and road damage. 
CBOs’ comments show their positive perception of these improvements:
Why? The benefit of the roads being good is they give motivation; if you are going to bring a load of bananas, the 
cost of bringing them is low because if you didn't have animals, you had to bring; for example, a load of bananas 
where the cost of a load of bananas was practically enough to pay the freight only. Focus Group CBO. San 
José del Fragua, Piedemonte San José.
We already notice it with the work of Community Development and Licit Opportunities. ‘Yes, sir, we support you,’ 
for example, for fish farming. ‘We are going to support you with this cold room’ or look, ‘we are going to give you 
this feed; do it, produce,’ ‘sir, but look, the road doesn't work, and how can I get my product out of here?’ So now 
they built treadplate, which helps keep passenger and cargo traffic flowing in winter. Interviews CBO. Puerto 
Libertador, Villanueva – Juan José – La Rica.
Of the CBO directors surveyed, 36.8 percent stated that between 2018-2021, reductions in travel time 
occurred due to the improvement of a critical tertiary road in their area. CBOs participating in the 
Social Mapping session claimed that on average CDLO-supported road improvements had reduced 
travel time by 37.8 percent, higher than the reduction reported in CDLO's database (26.7 percent).62
According to both sources of information, reductions in travel times range from 10 percent to 70 
percent (see Exhibit 6).
62 In the social mapping exercises, CBO members established the time reduction on the routes intervened by CDLO based on 
their experience, and through discussion among all participants in order to reach a consensus.
37 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 6: Percentage of reduction in travel time.
SOURCE: CDLO MISSION AND SOCIAL MAPPING
Travel time reductions decrease transportation costs for people and agricultural production or supplies. 
However, most municipalities lack formal transportation to CBO veredas, so these cost reductions refer 
to informal motorcycle taxis, trucks, minibuses (colectivos), and buses (chivas). Activity participants 
explained this dynamic: 
So, by improving the road and being able to enter a chivero, the cost decreased, to say something, a load went 
from COP$15,000 to COP$5,000, so the cost tends to decrease. Interview with the local government official. 
Tarazá, La Caucana-San Miguel. 
The cost of [motorcycle taxis that the JACs had to pay] to go to the vereda has decreased because, you know, 
the roads were so bad… those hills were rougher, that is, damaged, now we have a treadplate, and the JAC’s 
motorcycle goes on that, so it is less expensive. Interview with CBO. San José del Fragua, Piedemonte San 
José.
F.3.2. CDLO has contributed to improving local economic conditions directly through the provision of 
productive assets and indirectly through improvements in access to public services and social 
infrastructure. CDLO's investment in community infrastructure (including education) represented 6.4 
percent of CDLO’s total investment during the period covered by this evaluation. Community 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 38
infrastructure activities include community centers, rural libraries, and cultural centers. In educational 
institutions, these investments have enabled the construction of classrooms, school canteens, sports 
centers, and laboratories. Additionally, various schools have undergone remodeling. Even though CDLO 
is not one of the main actors contributing to community infrastructure improvements in the targeted 
corridors (in contrast to CDLO’s leading role in improving road infrastructure), CBO members and 
directors highlighted CDLO's participation in community infrastructure projects. 
CDLO has not invested directly in providing basic utilities (electricity, potable water, basic sanitation,
and communications), but it has indirectly contributed to improving access to these services through 
road improvements. For example, a CBO in the municipality of El Tambo stated that it has become 
easier for healthcare workers to access the territory to perform medical treatments or respond to 
emergencies that require an ambulance. In the same vein, other CBO members said:
It was also made in the Boquerón hamlet, where the health center is located; an energy transformer was also 
installed so that the health post would have electricity and an access ramp; this benefits the 28 veredas. Social 
Mapping CBO. San José del Fragua, Piedemonte San José.
F.3.3. Although the majority of producer CBOs engaged in traditional economic activities, CDLO has 
largely financed non-traditional economic activities such as rural tourism and gastronomy, contributing 
to the diversification of the local economy. According to results from our surveys, CDLO's activities are 
focused on traditional economic activities, mainly agricultural and agro-industrial, with an innovative and 
market-oriented approach.63 These activities exist or have a specific tradition in the targeted corridors, 
such as cocoa, coffee, rubber, cachama (a freshwater fish), and vegetables. Of the CBO directors 
surveyed, 72.1 percent stated that the most important activity for their CBO is traditional. Non￾traditional economic activities involve community tourism chains, creative industries, and 
communications collectives and show relatively low participation. When asked, 24 percent of directors 
said they consider their CBO's main activity non-traditional.64 
Regarding CDLO investment shares (a total of COP$68,618 million), 38 percent were targeted toward 
traditional economic activities, 53 percent of investments were targeted toward non-traditional 
economic activities, and 9.5 percent toward services and infrastructure support.65 In the non-traditional 
economic activity category, the evaluation identified 19 different economic activities, representing 
COP$11.785 million (including tourism and related activities and the creative economy).66
F.3.4. CDLO has stimulated value-generating activities for producer CBOs, contributing to the 
diversification of the local economic conditions. CDLO has sought to integrate its activities. For 
example, in La Macarena, in addition to promoting new tourist destinations besides the already well￾known Caño Cristales, CDLO has also integrated tourism-related activities, such as birdwatching. It has 
also promoted activities to facilitate the transformation and generation of value, such as beekeeping in 
Tazará and Cáceres (production of wax and raising queen bees) or the marketing of ASOACASAN's 
brand of chocolate in San José del Fragua. Nevertheless, some innovations related to products and 
processes are in an early stage regarding new production lines, cost reduction, and productivity 
63 According to comments on the presentation of findings and conclusions of the evaluation prepared by CDLO in November 
2021.
64 Source: Survey of CBO Directors. 65 Source: CDLO data, Mission Activity, Investment and Budget. 66 From Mission as of October 30, 2021.
39 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
enhancement. For example, in the case of a CDLO-supported studio for the production of musical 
instruments in Tumaco, at the time of the evaluation the studio was operating, but there was not a 
business plan in place, a scale of production had not been determined, and a market was not apparent. 
F.3.5. CDLO has trained young people in activities such as gastronomy, jewelry, and the production of 
musical instruments, supporting them in accessing economic opportunities and helping diversify the local 
economy while reinforcing cultural traditions. This finding comes from CDLO's diagnostic process, 
which identifies cultural, musical, and gastronomic traditions of the geographic corridors, and uses this 
information to establish youth training programs connected to the traditional culture with the ultimate 
aim of rendering these practices as productive, economically profitable activities. In turn, establishing 
economic value could help maintain and preserve cultural traditions, which often lie at the heart of 
community identity but are currently at risk of being lost. Thus, CDLO contributes to the preservation 
of intangible cultural heritage.
The evaluation identified an example of this dynamic of economic value and preservation in the 
municipality of Guapi, where activities to recover the region’s cultural heritage are active. In this sense, 
the strengthening of CBOs, such as Semblanzas del Rio Guapi (a musical group) and a music school, have 
contributed to preserving the musical legacy of the area and passing it on to new generations. At the 
same time, the organizational capacity building seeks to shift the local perspective on music, emphasizing 
its status as an economically profitable activity that can be integrated into viable jobs for young people in 
the municipality. For instance, Semblanzas del Rio Guapi has begun to make its music available on 
streaming platforms (e.g., Spotify) and generating income. Another case from Guapi is a jewelry school 
where a new generation revived the tradition of Caucasian filigree as a possible source of income. When 
the evaluation occurred, the CBO promoting Caucasian filigree had trained students but had not yet 
generated income. These ventures align with the creative “orange economy” (economía naranja) 
promoted by the Colombian government at the time of the evaluation and vary in terms of significant 
business development. 
F.3.6. CDLO has successfully leveraged other resources in the targeted territories for infrastructure 
projects. However, more resources could be leveraged by the economic component of the activity for 
crucial services associated with the activities. In addition to supporting productive infrastructure and
community and public social goods to enhance economic activities, CDLO has leveraged contributions 
from commercial partnerships and budgetary resources from sources such as territorial and national 
entities for infrastructure works. 
Although CDLO does not plan to invest in internet connectivity, actors participating in the evaluation 
identify this type of investment as crucial for communications collectives and economic development in 
these regions. Another investment mentioned as essential by CBO directors and members is related to 
technical assistance to increase the volume and quality of crops as a strategic element for the 
commercialization of farming. CDLO can leverage resources for these types of investments (internet 
connectivity and technical assistance) through partnerships and investments that were made outside the 
scope of CDLO but which had an effect on CDLO activities. Leveraging such resources could respond 
to the constrained fiscal situation of national and local governments, the private sector’s focus on 
profitability, the economic challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the slow recovery 
of the productive sector. 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 40
F.3.7. CBOs perceived a positive and improving economic environment. Of the CBO members 
surveyed, 70 percent perceived that the economic situation in their veredas had “improved” or 
“remained the same” compared to 2018.67 This perception is similar across all regions, with producer 
CBO members perceiving a greater improvement in the economic situation (75.2 percent). Links by 
producer CBOs to economic activities could explain the perception of better economic conditions and 
positive expectations (See Exhibit 7).
Exhibit 7: Perception of members of the change in the economic situation of their veredas since 2018.
SOURCE: SURVEY OF CBO MEMBERS
CDLO activities represent an opportunity for CBOs to mitigate the influence of illicit economies or 
undertake or strengthen activities in licit economies. Participation in these activities has reduced risks to 
physical integrity and lives, both individually and collectively, for communities. Similarly, CDLO has 
contributed to peacebuilding through tourism, music, and agriculture activities. It has also generated licit 
economic alternatives for communities. For example, a CBO member of the San José de Fragua 
Piedemonte San José corridor said: Cocoa now is a product that you can take from the farm, and your 
neighbor or your friend helps you pick. The big difference with coca, which pays a little more, is that the coca 
comes, and if they see you with a kilo of coca, they will kill you.
New economic opportunities represent a threat to economic actors involved in illicit activities. 
Moreover, viable licit productive activities promoted by CDLO are linked to the productive vocation of 
the targeted territory and contribute to local development. Several evaluation participants underlined 
this point:
I would believe that in all the initiatives that Community Development and Licit Opportunities has been 
supporting, they have been contributing to show the campesinos and the people of Guaviare that it is possible to 
change that mindset that we had for many years and in which we thought that this region was only suitable for 
illicit crops, to serve to drug trafficking, also Community Development and Licit Opportunities no matter what the 
initiative is, but when it is about the feeling of a community, and they support them and prove that it is a viable 
work to promote development. Interview with the local government official. San José del Guaviare, Trocha 
Ganadera.
In some cases, armed groups and promoters of illicit crops see cocoa producers as a threat to their business. 
They say that cocoa leaders in the region have been threatened, so they [leaders] try to keep a low profile so as 
67 The survey did not include questions to delve into the reasons 30.0 percent of the people responded that the economic 
situation in their territories worsened. 
41 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
not to generate conflicts with armed groups in the region. Interview with CBO. San José de Fragua, 
Piedemonte San José. 
I mean, this is amazing, man. I mean, which program comes with money, deposits it in the community account, 
the board looks for the engineers, looks for the bricklayer, looks for legal suppliers, encourages a legal economy, 
the legal work, and the community's work. Interview with the local government official. Tarazá, Tarazá – La 
Caucana – San Miguel.
CDLO activities have a more significant impact in contexts where crop substitution processes occur, 
because communities expect to engage in licit economic activities and CDLO contributions could 
complement ongoing crop substitution processes. Similarly, CDLO activities offer the possibility of 
strengthening a sense of collective belonging and rootedness in these territories, creating new shared 
meanings in these areas. A CBO director said: 
Regarding tourism, we haven’t had it so easy, it has been a learning process, but we want to focus on continuing 
to grow in our target, which is to move forward with ecotourism, our vereda, our association, that Putumayo will 
be recognized by something licit and that... and thus to be able to move forward and put that contribution to the 
peace that we need so much. Interview with CBO. Valle del Guamuez, La Hormiga. 
F.3.8. CBOs recognize CDLO as the main actor making economic contributions. The highest rate of 
participation in CDLO is among institutional actors who contribute economically to CDLO territories 
(See Exhibit 8). It is also important to highlight the low participation of the private sector, except for the 
support that private sector actors provide through credit to CBOs. 
Exhibit 8: The type of institutional actor providing support to producer CBOs.
SOURCE: SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
When asked to identify the support services received by CBOs for their main productive activity since 
2018, 77.9 percent of producer CBOs referenced having received technical assistance or training, while 
56.7 percent of producer CBOs identified having received machinery, equipment, and inputs. According 
to directors of productive CBOs, the services they received the least were credit (9.6 percent) and 
direct financing (28.8 percent).68 It is worth noting that CDLO does not offer credit to producer CBOs. 
F.3.9. CBOs reported progress in income generation, although a large number of CBOs still do not 
generate income or profits. Information on sales and profit allowed the evaluation team to establish that 
68 Source: Survey of CBO Directors.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 42
23 out of 48 economic activities (of 129 total activities that make up the evaluation) recorded sales
during the evaluation period. Sales originated mainly from traditional economic activities, for example, 
cocoa, coffee, and milk, and to a lesser extent from non-traditional activities. On the other hand, 
according to the survey of CBO directors, 64.4 percent of producer CBOs generated income, of which 
74.6 percent calculated sales through year-end profits, earnings, or surpluses.69 In 2020, 68 percent of 
producer CBOs that estimated sales calculated an average profit of 20.5 percent. Of the producer 
CBOs that recorded a profit in 2020, 41.2 percent said their profit increased compared to the prior 
year.70 Data related to income generation and profits accessed by CDLO is insufficient and does not
allow for more precise and in-depth analyses.71 
Of the 104 producers surveyed in the survey of CBO directors, 97.0 percent of producer CBOs that 
generated income said that a determining factor for the sustainability of their economic activities was 
the growth of their productive activity, while 65.7 percent cited the strengthening of their productive 
capacity.72 Over one-third (35.6 percent) of producer CBOs did not generate income. Of these, 43.2 
percent claimed this was due to a lack of financial resources, and 16.2 percent identified a lack of 
agreements among their CBO members as a reason. Other reasons cited by producer CBOs, such as 
lack of or weak commercialization, or high costs of starting production, represented less than 12 
percent. Thus, while positive income and profit generation has taken place, the proportion of producer 
CBOs that have achieved these positive results remains limited. Moreover, as previously noted, it is 
possible that at the time of the evaluation, some CBOs had not yet reached the level of organizational 
maturity required to generate income or profits. 
F.3.10. Challenges to improving the scope and sustainability of production, commercialization, and profit 
generation remain. These include access to technical assistance, technology, machinery, and financing. 
Although the latter is not part of CDLO´s model, CBOs identified the need for this additional service. 
The challenges identified by CBOs vary according to their degree of economic maturity. Of the 
producer CBOs that have generated income, 35.8 percent claimed that they needed equipment or 
commodity inputs to increase their profits, 25.4 percent claimed they needed financing/credit 
(something CDLO does not provide), and 22.4 percent said they require technical assistance, and 
training. Meanwhile, 14.9 percent claimed they needed to forge commercial partnerships to increase 
their profits.73
The evaluation identified factors limiting production and affecting the consolidation of commercialization 
in specific activities. Table 6 shows specific examples of factors hindering production, although the 
content of the table does not attempt to exhaustively incorporate all elements found in the evaluation 
concerning those aspects. 
69 This figure implies an increase in capacity because it shows that the CBOs have adopted more accurate administrative 
methods. 25.4 percent indicated they do not calculate earnings or profits.
70 Source: Survey of CBO Directors. 71 The IP provided comment on this finding, suggesting that the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on the feasibility of 
collecting this information. The data collected for this evaluation, did not allow to establish directly that the insufficiency on 
CDLO data availability related to income generation and profits was due to the impact of COVID 19 on CDLO data collection 
on activities. 
72 The question that dealt with sustainability had multiple answers and was applied in the survey of CBO directors. As there 
might be several answers to this single question, the sum of the percentages exceeds 100.0 percent. Source: Survey of CBO 
Directors.
73 Source: Survey of CBO Directors.
43 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 6: IDENTIFICATION OF FACTORS THAT HINDER PRODUCTION AND AFFECT 
COMMERCIALIZATION
TERRITORIES FACTORS THAT HINDER PRODUCTION
San José de Fragua Lacking understanding and addressing of buyers' needs and requirements by CBOs. According to 
a SENA official, a limited understanding of the standards required by cacao buyers limits the 
CBO’s ability to build credibility and trust with buyers, saying, [they cannot] simply continue to 
cultivate as they have always been used to do.
Puerto Libertador Lacking access to new technologies to increase the productivity of fish farming CBOs. 
El Tarra Lack of intra-predial technical assistance in pruning, sanitary requirements, and post-harvest 
management limits the quality and value of the product.
SOURCE: EVALUATION INTERVIEWS WITH CBOS.
F.3.11. The productive activities supported by CDLO are in line with the productive vocations of the 
territories, and the majority of CBOs carry out environmental control activities. Although support for 
economic activities with a focus on environmental sustainability has not been at the core of CDLO, 
opportunities may exist to enhance local economic conditions. Almost six of ten producer CBOs 
reported that since 2018, their main environmental sustainability activity was promoting environmental 
actions and improving production practices for goods and services. Half of all CBOs indicated that their
main environmental activity was implementing an environmental management plan and ensuring that 
inputs came from environmentally friendly sources. In addition, territorial entities (largely municipalities 
and governors’ offices) have developed environmentally focused initiatives. In Tarazá, for example, 
entities created a productive link between the mining and the beekeeping sectors. In La Macarena, 
entities created circular economic activities and started using fiberglass for manufacturing canoes to 
avoid using forest wood. It is worth noting that CDLO complies with the regulations defined by USAID 
on environmental issues and considers the mitigation of environmental impacts that CBOs might 
generate within the framework of commercial activities and production processes. 
F.3.12. There are limitations to the information accessed by CDLO regarding changes in the variables of 
CBOs’ economic activity (e.g., quantities produced, revenues, costs, profits). For this evaluation, the data 
and records available were insufficient to allow for a more precise and far-reaching analysis of the 
performance of CDLO-supported CBOs’ production and commercial activities in terms of volume, 
production costs, productivity, marketing, and income generation. The evaluation team also found no 
clear strategy or data to follow up on establishing and developing commercial agreements.74
CONCLUSIONS
C.3.1. By supporting producer CBOs, CDLO has contributed to the generation of added value and the 
strengthening of economic activities in CDLO territories, especially regarding non-traditional economic 
activities (Findings 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5).
C.3.2. In addition to the direct CDLO investments to strengthen productive activities and the provision 
of productive assets, the Activity has successfully supported the construction and improvement of 
74 To deepen the evaluation analysis of commercial partnerships, secondary information provided by the IP was included in 
finding 11. Even using this information, the evaluation team found a need to standardize the available information to foster 
greater understanding of the activities. 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 44
infrastructure, which also has positively impacted the context for the development of local economic 
activities (Findings 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6).
C.3.3. CBO members have positive perceptions of local economic conditions. CBOs recognize CDLO's 
economic contributions, and more than two-thirds of the CBOs report that the organization´s income, 
as a whole, increased. However, several organizations still do not generate income, demonstrating the 
challenges faced in strengthening the economic activities of the organizations (Findings 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9).
C.3.4. The evaluation identified support that environmental assistance could be integrated into CDLO 
financed activities even though environmental assistance is not part of CDLO's current intervention 
model, including support to access technical assistance and sources of financing and strengthening 
related to environmentally sustainable development. Including these aspects in future programs could 
improve the scope and sustainability of supported economic activities (Findings 3.10 and 3.11).
C.3.5. CDLO complies with USAID's environmental area requirements and Colombian environmental 
regulations. However, the intervention model does not include specific actions related to environmental 
practices, which some CBOs have developed independently. These practices could be supported as a 
mechanism to strengthen the added value and compliance with standards that some markets may
demand, which are worth incorporating because of their potential benefit to organizations (Finding 
3.11). 
C.3.6. Opportunities may exist to improve the quantity and quality of information on the economic 
performance of CBOs to identify changes related to CDLO support (Finding 3.12). 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
R.3.1. Design and implement actions to expand the effective and extensive use of productive and social 
infrastructure and productive assets provided with CDLO support, generating sustained positive impacts 
in the local economy (Conclusions 3.1 and 3.2). 
R.3.2. Continue combining actions to diversify the economy and support the production and 
commercialization of sustainable products that are part of traditional economies in future CDLO 
support or future programs implemented in the territories (Conclusion 3.1). 
R.3.3. Strengthen actions carried out to guarantee the sustainability of the support granted by CDLO to 
CBOs, depending on the type of organization and productive activity, with special emphasis on achieving 
complementarity in the access by CBOs to other programs. This will ensure that the support provided 
by CDLO is part of an integrated but finite intervention model while contributing to the indicators of 
leveraged resources by the program (Conclusion 3.3). 
R.3.4. Design and implement a strategy to support CBOs in identifying and managing alternative 
financing necessary to continue or scale their productive activities (Conclusions 3.3 and 3.4). 
R.3.5. Carry out actions to facilitate and support the access of producer CBOs to technical assistance, 
including through the public Agricultural Extension Subsystem (SEA), as well as other local market 
actors offering the service. By doing so, the capacity-building processes supported by the CDLO will be
complemented by access to technical assistance that enhances the productive and commercial capacity 
of organizations (Conclusion 3.4). 
45 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
R.3.6. Analyze approaches and actions to support green and environmentally sustainable products worth 
incorporating into the CDLO support model for producer CBOs, seeking to expand business 
opportunities that contribute to local, sustainable development (Conclusions 3.4 and 3.5). 
R.3.7. Design and implement a strategy to deepen the quantitative and aggregated analysis of economic 
performance data of the producer CBOs supported by CDLO (Conclusion 3.6).
PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES 
Q4. HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE ACTIVITY´S MODEL TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES BEEN IN 
REACHING ITS RESULTS? 
FINDINGS 
F.4.1. CDLO has contributed to improving the provision and quality of road infrastructure. Road 
infrastructure represented 41.3 percent of CDLO investment. This infrastructure reaches 80.6 percent 
of targeted corridors and includes the construction of treadplates, culverts, bridges, pedestrian bridges, 
retaining walls, and box culverts. In municipalities such as Tumaco, Timbiquí, and La Macarena, 
infrastructure projects also included improvements in river transportation. Infrastructure activities have 
benefited CBOs. According to 65 percent of CBO directors, from 2018 to 2021, the most crucial 
tertiary road for the operation of their CBO was either maintained, repaired, or upgraded. Of those 
directors, 55.7 percent identified CDLO as an actor contributing to this improvement. 
F.4.2. The model of execution of projects through JACs has been successful, even generating surpluses 
that were reinvested in the communities. Fifty-five percent of CBO directors claimed that CDLO￾supported projects resulted in monetary surpluses, which allowed other projects to be carried out. The 
JACs carried out these projects at high standards and used local resources. The generation of surpluses 
has allowed JACs to carry out other projects in the communities in addition to those initially planned, as 
the following JAC pointed out:
In the end, we were able to complete the target of 14 sewers, and from the whole exercise, we were fortunate 
that the community action board had a couple of resources left over with which there was an agreement to build 
one more sewer. The work was no longer the 14 culverts, but one more culvert was built under the same 
conditions. Interview with CBO. Samaniego, Chuguldi. 
JACs clarified that CBOs’ execution of resources could be more efficient than the contractor execution 
model usually used by the municipal authorities. For example, interviewees explained that under the 
typical contractor model, the execution takes longer, and there is no surplus: 
That was wonderful, one person told me from one of those works, teacher, we have a surplus here, we are going 
to use it for this, what do you think? And you go and check the budgets and compare with what you would 
normally have spent, for God's sake, that's huge, the difference is huge and profound. CDLO territorial staff 
member. Puerto Libertador, Villanueva – Juan José – La Rica.
F.4.3. CDLO has contributed to improving the provision and quality of local productive infrastructure, 
contributing in turn to the improvement of the economic environment. However, the effective use of 
the infrastructure could be expanded. CDLO municipalities have low access to productive 
infrastructure, as 27 percent of CBO directors report having access to municipality collection, storage, 
and warehousing centers, and 20 percent report having access to processing plants. Between 11 percent 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 46
and 15 percent of directors said that between 2018 and 2021, there were infrastructure improvements 
in their municipalities, and between three percent and five percent of these directors said that CDLO 
contributed to the improvements.75 During the evaluation period, 12 percent of the investment 
resources of the infrastructure component were allocated to productive infrastructure, mainly 
collection centers, tourist services (including investments in inns, glamping, ecolodges, showcases, eco￾parks, spas, restaurants, kiosks, canoes, and engines), creative laboratories, and innovation centers. 
CDLO has executed this infrastructure work in 52.8 percent of the targeted municipalities. 
An example of infrastructure support is evident in the following comment: 
But now with all this that we are experiencing, the access road, the collection center is making many people see 
it as feasible and more profitable for them, and they want to join this group, to join us to be part of beekeeping 
in the region. Focus Group CBO. Tarazá, Tarazá – La Caucana – San Miguel.
F.4.4. CDLO has contributed to improving the provision and quality of social infrastructure in the 
intervention territories. CDLO's contribution to basic services is also related to ensuring that the 
productive and community infrastructure is provided with basic services. For example, CDLO 
contributed by installing solar energy systems in collection centers, giving access to the internet in 
community centers to disseminate relevant information about the territory and CDLO's activities, and 
providing toilets and potable water in educational institutions. Examples of this complementary 
infrastructure are evident in the following comments by CBO and CDLO officials:
Elements for the boarding school, improvement of the sanitary batteries of the institutions, and the solar panels 
for the local pipeline. Interview with CDLO territorial staff member.
F.4.5. CDLO has indirectly contributed to improving access to basic services. CDLO made the strategic 
decision to contribute to the provision of basic services indirectly and thus achieve the targets of its 
performance indicator: “CDLO-04-C percentage increase in the number of citizens with access to basic 
services provided by municipalities through CDLO-supported activities.” As reflected in Finding 3.2, 
CDLO invested in productive and community infrastructure (including educational institutions) that 
indirectly contributed to basic services. Additionally, CDLO invested in community services. From 2018 
to 2021, 27.6 percent of CBO directors who reported improvements in community centers highlighted 
CDLO’s participation. Moreover, 14.6 and 12.8 percent of the members who identified improvements in 
cultural centers or libraries in educational centers, respectively, noted CDLO's participation.76
F.4.6. The projects to improve the provision and quality of public goods and services financed by CDLO 
are in line with local needs and, in most cases, have met expectations. For most directors and members, 
CDLO's infrastructure projects are aligned with the “most important needs” of the CBO and of the 
vereda, where they carry out their main social and economic activities (See Exhibit 9).
75 Source: Survey of CBO Directors. 76 Source: Survey of CBO Directors and Members.
47 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 9. Work that was aligned with the most important needs of people or CBO.
SOURCE: SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS AND SURVEY OF CBO MEMBERS
CDLO and CBOs prepare proposals for these activities jointly, taking into account the productive 
vocation of the corridor and the interests and experience of CBOs. CBOs present proposals for 
approval with the CDLO territorial evaluation spaces. However, in the design phase, several CBOs 
expressed discrepancies between the communities’ expectations and the type of work that can be 
financed by CDLO, which sometimes led to tensions. For example, a CBO claimed:
The recommendation I would make it to be quite concrete and clear at the beginning of what is going to be done
or to generate strategies of not generating so many expectations but better to say it at the end, because what 
happened with the Activity in the CBO that we are in is that they were told that we were going to do without 
reviewing a few issues in terms of budget, let's say. Interview with CBO. Valle del Guamuez, La Hormiga.
F.4.7. CDLO and governments are recognized in the communities as the main actors supporting 
infrastructure maintenance. The evaluation found that CBO´s directors identified governments and the 
CDLO Activity as the main actors supporting maintenance infrastructure projects, with 69.7 percent 
and 55.7 percent mentioning these actors, respectively.
F.4.8. The infrastructure projects financed by the activity benefit CBO communities as well as 
neighboring communities. Concerning road infrastructure, the sections of improved roads are located in 
the territories where CBOs operate. As these roads are also used to access other veredas, 
municipalities, and cities in addition to those in which CBOs are located, the improved road sections 
also benefit neighboring communities. The map in Exhibit 10 shows how road projects improved CBO 
mobility, access to products, and the surrounding communities' connectivity. Infrastructure activities 
(yellow on the map) have greater geographic coverage than traditional and non-traditional activities 
(blue and red on the map). Moreover, synergies emerge when several infrastructure projects are carried 
out on different sections of the same road (See Exhibit 10). In terms of productive infrastructure, 
CDLO-supported collection centers are intended to benefit CBOs and other local actors that require 
these services. Regarding community infrastructure, support for the construction or endowment of 
libraries also benefits other communities and CDLO’s targeted beneficiaries. 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 48
Convention
Activity Class
• Traditional economies
• Non-Traditional economies
• Infrastructure (Transportation 
 
Exhibit 10. Networks in the geographic corridor of Villa Nueva, Juan José, La Rica - Córdoba.
SOURCE: SOCIAL MAPPING, SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
A CBO leader explains: It was a need that not only welcomes a community, but also welcomes another part of 
the territory...it will not only be a single institution that will benefit, but an educational corridor, and apart from 
this educational corridor, the communities surrounding this corridor will also benefit. The beneficiary population 
was not small, but rather a fairly large population within the municipality. Interview with CBO. Samaniego, 
Chuguldí. 
F.4.9. Most CBOs participate in the design, execution, and follow-up of infrastructure projects. Their 
participation has been diverse. From 2018 to 2021, 62.8 percent of CBOs participated in infrastructure 
projects. Concerning JACs, 80.4 percent participated in these projects during the evaluation period. 
Our survey found that 31.1 percent of CBO directors (and 19.3 percent of members) who participated 
in CDLO-supported infrastructure projects stated that they were involved in the design process. CBOs 
claimed they were part of the decision-making on the location of the infrastructure projects, but they 
did not participate in other design decisions. The following statement may explain the low participation 
of CBOs in the design phase of infrastructure works:
We did go to do that, we went to look, to prioritize where we wanted the culverts, at what exact point, because 
we had to look at a strategic point to have, let's say, more impact on the road, right? And that, we went, we were 
attentive. Interview with CBO. El Tambo, Quilcacé - La Gallera. 
49 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Regarding the execution of resources, 94.7 percent of the investment resources of the CDLO 
infrastructure component were executed by CBOs, mainly by JACs (85.4 percent of total resources). 
The evaluation found the lowest participation of JACs in productive infrastructure, where JACs managed 
61.3 percent of these resources. The remaining part of the investment in productive infrastructure was 
executed mainly by producer CBOs (16.9 percent). In Guapi and San José del Guaviare, the executors 
were ethnic and women's organizations. Regarding community infrastructure, JACs executed 78.2 
percent of the resources, with significant experience in multi-actor execution. For example, the
Laboratorio creativo y empresarial, a creative business lab in Tumaco, operated through a collaboration 
involving La Espriella JAC, the Local Community Council, the La Espriella primary school, and the 
Parents’ Association. Interviewees from the CBO explained that: 
When CDLO arrived, people thought it was just another program, and we liked the work CDLO did because it 
began by raising awareness, and the meetings articulated us, the community action board, parents' association, 
students, and we all came and contributed ideas and brainstormed until this whole process happened. Interview 
with CBO. Tumaco, Dosquebradas – La Espriella.
With regard to social control, 57.1 percent of CBO directors (35.5 percent of members) who took part 
in CDLO-supported infrastructure projects stated that they had also taken part in project supervision 
or a community audit.77 For the execution of infrastructure projects, CDLO requested that JACs create 
a committee dedicated to the supervision or oversight of contracted goods and services. In some cases, 
external actors, such as the mayor’s office (Puerto Libertador) or representatives of other communities 
(Timbiquí), also took part in oversight. A CBO described the contributions of these committees: 
INTERVIEWER: I mean, were the overseers active? Did they give you recommendations? Did they show you what 
could be improved?
INTERVIEWEE: We had to do it in a season when winter was active, and there were times; for example, when 
we had this stretch and water was [leaking]. So, they would pass by and look, "see, the water is going to get in 
there, you have to reinforce it there," so they were always on the lookout. Interview with CBO. Puerto 
Libertador, Villanueva – Juan José – La Rica.
This type of social control ensured that work was carried out per the intended schedule and budget. As 
a result, CBO directors and members rated the execution of projects within the planned time frame and 
at or under the allotted budget on average at 4.6 and 4.2, respectively, on a scale from 1.0 -5.0.78 
Road repair and maintenance of financed projects by CDLO after their completion are not part of the 
agreement of CDLO implementation, nor are they an obligation of the activity. However, JACs have 
shown interest and have actively participated in road construction with CDLO and have suggested that 
the maintenance of those projects is of their interest. The participation of JACs in maintenance can 
benefit JACs and communities. This type of maintenance is common for JAC activities. In addition, 
community residents often actively participate in road maintenance through collective workdays led by 
JACs. During these workdays, residents conduct maintenance of the roadsides, including shoulders, 
ditches, and culverts.
77 Source: Survey of CBO Members and Directors. 78 Ibid.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 50
The management of productive infrastructure is carried out by CBO beneficiaries of the CDLO's 
economic development component, who operate agricultural collection centers and tourism 
infrastructure. In some cases, such as in Puerto Libertador, CBOs have not yet defined an administrative 
and financial model for operating the collection center. It is worth noting that the operation of the 
productive infrastructure may face limitations due to shortfalls in technical knowledge. 
Government officials or JAC directors are responsible for the operation of community infrastructure 
and are in charge of decisions regarding the scheduling and usage of this space. In the case of a rural 
library for peace, the library staff, in addition to being in charge of the space, also carry out diagnostics 
to establish which of the communities within the library’s coverage area could benefit from technological 
or digital initiatives. 
F.4.10. The successful use of resources has allowed JACs to gain internal and external legitimacy, which 
could facilitate procurement for future projects. For the members surveyed, CBO participation in 
infrastructure projects with CDLOs has contributed to internal legitimacy (among organization 
members) at a rate of 4.2 out of 5.0 points. Members’ assessment of their CBO’s external legitimacy 
(vis-à-vis CBOs or public or private entities) averaged 4.0 points. 
This result is important because the relationship between JACs and the public sector before the 
implementation of CDLO was defined by distrust.79 A CBO member stated:
...the same government that attacks the hardest and the one that believes the least in the administration of the 
community councils realizes that it is possible to do things well. Interview with CBO. Timbiquí, Cultural Costa 
Pacifica.
After the implementation of CDLO infrastructure projects, public sector confidence in CBOs, mainly 
JACs, increased. A local government official explained that:
…[CDLO] empowered the community action board presidents, the resources yielded, there was transparency, 
there was a commitment, there was collective work, I mean, the resources lasted. Interview with a local 
government official. San José del Fragua, Piedemonte San José.
F.4.11. CDLO has been able to connect to and leverage budgetary resources from other sources for 
infrastructure projects, although coordination between local governments and JACs regarding the 
execution of infrastructure projects has been limited. Municipal authorities have sometimes facilitated 
contact between CDLO officials and JAC members. In other cases, the municipalities provide advice or 
support to JACs. However, JACs rarely collaborate with the municipal government to execute the 
projects. One interviewee explained that the municipality only acted as an intermediary to introduce 
CDLO to the CBO, and the municipality did not perform any other activity:
As I said, I mean, the official from the municipality introduced us to Community Development and Licit 
Opportunities, and that was it... It was no more, he came here once or twice when we were working, greeted us, 
‘guys, congratulations, we are doing very well,’ and that was it, nothing more. Interview with CBO. Tarazá, La 
Caucana-San Miguel. 
79 In some territories experiences with projects involving JACs had not being positive in terms of the results and the efficient 
use of resources. The experience with CDLO projects implied recognition of JACs’ capacity and results.
51 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
The evaluation team found a few rare cases where the interaction between the JAC and the municipality 
was high. For example, the municipality of Samaniego supported road improvement by lending JAC 
construction machinery. 
While municipalities and JACs rarely cooperate directly on public projects, CDLO has sought to 
facilitate increased scale by promoting complementarity with the infrastructure investments carried out 
by territorial and national entities. For example, in Puerto Libertador, the municipality constructed 
infrastructure to complement CDLO projects: JACs built a treadplate on one part of the road and the 
municipality on the other. In San José de Fragua, in addition to the CDLO projects, the ART also 
provided resources for constructing another section of roadway, which the government executed. 
When municipalities or governors’ offices carry out their infrastructure projects, they use a contractor￾based model with little or no JAC participation.
F.4.12. Despite CDLO's contributions, challenges to improving the provision of rural goods and services 
remain. These challenges should be addressed jointly with relevant actors. Despite CDLO's 
contributions to improving the provision of rural services, the reality for CBO directors and members is 
that access and quality of basic services remain unresolved in their vereda. The word clouds in Exhibit 11
illustrate this perception based on the answers of CBO directors and members. CBO directors and 
members were asked the following question: From the point of view of this organization, explain in two words 
what is the main issue or need that has not yet been addressed, and that is a priority for the socio-economic 
development of the vereda. After roads, which represent the most prevalent response received, sewage 
and electricity emerge as the next most frequent main issues or needs that stand out. Achieving 
adequate coverage and quality of services requires the interaction of different actors across the 
territory.
Directors of CBOS: Members:
Exhibit 11. Word clouds depicting the main socio-economic development need of the vereda (Spanish).
SOURCE: PREPARED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM BASED ON A SURVEY OF CBO MEMBERS AND SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
CONCLUSIONS
C.4.1. CDLO’s infrastructure creates direct mobility benefits by reducing transportation times and 
costs and improving the economic environment (Findings 4.1 and 4.3).
C.4.2. Through road improvements and the provision of utilities in schools and community centers, 
CDLO contributes indirectly to increasing access to basic services. However, low access rates still 
require coordinated actions that are beyond the scope of the Activity (Findings 4.4 and 4.5).
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 52
C.4.3. JACs are efficient in managing the available resources (including schedule, budget, and labor) 
when executing CDLO infrastructure projects, which demonstrates that efficient execution enables the 
generation of surpluses to finance new projects and wins them the necessary internal and external 
legitimacy to carry them out. However, few JACs have carried out other projects (Findings 4.2 and 
4.10).
C.4.4. CDLO’s goods and services provision projects respond to the needs of CBOs and communities. 
Governments and the CDLO Activity are recognized as the leading actors supporting infrastructure 
maintenance, benefiting targeted communities and communities in neighboring areas (Findings 4.6, 4.7, 
and 4.8). 
C.4.5. CBOs participate in different stages of infrastructure projects, achieving efficient execution and 
gaining legitimacy. The above also helps CBOs to continue to serve as executors of future projects 
(Findings 4.9 and 4.10). 
C.4.6. Despite the successful completion of projects, and even though CDLO has coordinated with and 
leveraged budgetary resources from different sources, there are still challenges to improving the 
provision of goods and services in the targeted territories, although these go beyond the scope of the 
activity (Findings 4.11 and 4.12).
RECOMMENDATIONS 
R.4.1. Design and implement a strategy to further document and promote the infrastructure projects 
execution model with JACs, taking advantage of the capacity generated and the possibilities of 
replication as a strategy to enhance local development as an input for USAID Colombia (Conclusions 
4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5). 
R.4.2. Analyze the scope, reach, and pertinence of including indicators such as CDLO-04-C (Percentage 
increase in the number of citizens with access to public services provided by municipalities supported by 
CDLO) and CDLO-14-O (Percentage change in the school dropout rate) in future USAID programs, 
recognizing that these types of indicators respond to aggregate municipal effects that can exceed the 
operating capacity of a specific activity (Conclusion 4.6).
MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE 
Q5: HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE MECHANISMS BEEN IN FOSTERING 
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND INCREASING THE IMPACT OF TERRITORIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC 
DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS? 
FINDINGS 
F.5.1. Through the development of infrastructure projects with CBOs, CDLO has been able to start 
building the trust required to engage in multilevel dialogue. CBOs and communities have been affected 
by the conflict and previous negative experiences with international development, which has hampered
their communication capacities and relationships with other actors. It is therefore crucial for CDLO to 
build trust. This initial trust is built through activities like diagnostic dialogues and financing road 
infrastructure projects. A CDLO officer explained:
When the Program arrived (…) in August, the Program started an activity called Road Infrastructure 
Improvement with treadplate interventions in four municipalities to generate confidence in the communities so 
53 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
that the communities would know about the Program. Interview with CDLO territorial staff member. cSe: El 
Tarra.
F.5.2. CDLO has successfully created networks that connect CBOs and contribute to building clusters of 
licit economies in the corridors. The multilevel dialogue component builds partnerships between different 
types of CBOs: producer associations, JACs, communication collectives, sports clubs, and other groups. 
Data from the survey of CBO directors showed that 40.8 percent of CBOs work with other CBOs, 
including across geographic corridors. CDLO has created synergies by building complementary 
partnerships and strengthening clusters of licit economic activities in the targeted corridors. This 
evaluation characterizes these observed interrelationships as follows: 
• Horizontal linkages between traditional and non-traditional economic activities.
• Horizontal linkages between producer CBOs and communications collectives. 
• Linkages of economic activities with cultural traditions by the other CBOs.
• Linkages between communication strategies and re-signification80 of the territory.
Based on this typology of linkages, the evaluation team found that CDLO has constructed networks 
according to what the team termed a “spider strategy:” the Activity positions itself at the center of a web 
of relationships, with horizontal linkages connected to the main activity, and actors connected across 
this web. That is how CDLO built a relationship network through which it seeks to intentionally 
strengthen clusters of licit economies. 
Exhibit 12 shows quantitative and geographic information to characterize the process of network 
building that was carried out by CDLO in a geographic corridor. The evaluation team combined data 
from two sources: the survey of CBO directors and social mapping based on qualitative group work 
carried out with beneficiaries.81 The box below contains a representative network analysis of El Tambo 
municipality based on the CBO´s directors' answer to the question, What other CBOs does your CBO have 
a relationship with? Each CBO identified represents a node, and these nodes create a network. The 
importance of each node depends on its centrality (i.e., where it is located in the network and the 
number of connections that it has with other nodes).82 The evaluation team identified two networks in 
El Tambo: a large network (Network A) and a smaller one (Network B). These networks are reflected 
in the visualization included in Exhibit 12. 
Network A is located in the urban area of the municipality and Cuatro Esquinas vereda, where many 
diverse activities converge to create a cluster. The evaluation team mapped traditional economic 
activities, including chontaduro (an edible palm fruit) cultivation, silk production, and the hosting of cycling 
and soccer tournaments, as well as tourism and infrastructure activities. Network B is located in the 
northern part of the municipality, near the Munchique mountain range. 
80 The positive valuation that takes places in some places after the peace treaty, where communities believe that the territory 
has a chance to produce and offer options to its citizens. 81 For the exercise, three questions were taken from the survey on the relationships between CBOs and their location and 
proximity between the various activities and components.
82 A detailed explanation of this methodology is included in Annex IV. Detailed Methodology, Network Analysis section.
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 54
Exhibit 12. Social mapping of Quilcace-Gallera Corridor
SOURCE: EL TAMBO SOCIAL MAPPING, SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
Exhibit 13 shows a network mapping of the municipality of Samaniego in Nariño. The evaluation found 
three main networks. Network A is located around the urban center of the municipality. This area has a 
temperate climate, coffee cultivation is a core economic activity, and the ABADES association plays a 
role in terms of centrality. The vereda of Chucultí, which corresponds to Network B, is located on the 
highest thermal floor. This area is suitable for vegetable and potato production, and CDLO is building 
another synergy core there in partnership with the schools and the Rural Library for Peace.83 Finally, 
Network C is smaller and located in the upper part of the municipality, where farmers produce 
potatoes. 
83 See Annex II. Supplemental Analysis and Data, COOINPROSAM case study.
55 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 13. Social mapping of Chuguldi Corridor
SOURCE: SAMANIEGO SOCIAL MAPPING, SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 56
Exhibit 14 reflects a social mapping exercise of the municipality of Valle de Guamuez in Putumayo. The 
lower box shows a network with a significant number of activities. Those activities constitute a cluster 
around the vereda of La Florida. The ASOPROCAF association’s node’s centrality is important, as it is 
located in the central part of the network where nodes intersect with each other. This high centrality 
with many nodes intersecting one another is also exhibited by the La Florida cocoa producers’ 
association. 
Exhibit 14. Social mapping of La Hormiga Corridor
SOURCE: SOCIAL MAPPING OF VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ, SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
Exhibit 15 reflects networks for the department of Putumayo. These networks correspond to the 
municipalities of Valle de Guamuez, Orito, Puerto Asis, and Villagarzon. The CDLO model expects 
CBOs to gain greater maturity in their capacity through carrying out CDLO activities. According to this 
model, over time, the networks of Puerto Asis and Villagarzon, which were formed more recently, will 
form a network of relationships similar to those found in the other municipalities. 
57 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 15. Networks in the department of Putumayo
SOURCE: SURVEY OF CBO DIRECTORS
F.5.3. CDLO promotes interaction between producer CBOs engaged in traditional and non-traditional 
economic activities. This finding is based on a context analysis that identifies the ecological, tourism, and 
cultural potential in the different geographic corridors. Building on this analysis, a linkage is made 
between traditional and non-traditional economic sectors, such as tourism or sports, to generate new 
opportunities for the population. For example, the “cocoa route” combines a traditional economic 
activity in the Guamuez Valley (cocoa) with a non-traditional economic activity: ecological tourism. A 
young man from the vereda explained that he participated in the tourism initiative, in which bird and 
primate watching offers an opportunity to expand the economic options for the vereda and the 
community. The evaluation team found a horizontal linkage between the JAC of vereda La Florida, the 
association of cocoa producers ASOPROCAF, and the tourism project of the “cocoa route.” These 
CBOs are composed mainly of women. 
F.5.4. CDLO promotes interaction between producer CBOs (from traditional and non-traditional 
economic activities) and other CBOs, such as those engaged in communication activities. Content 
production and communication strategies make visible and promote the municipality's natural and 
ecological attractions, strengthening conservation and environmental protection processes. For example, 
in San José del Guaviare, the evaluation team identified a horizontal linkage between the content 
production collective Maloka digital and various eco-tourism initiatives in the region, which concentrate 
their activities in protected areas such as the Serranía de La Lindosa and the Guayabero river basin. 
These two sectors can enhance each other because the ecotourism initiatives generate content for the 
communication collectives, and the pieces that the communication collectives produce publicize the 
region's tourist attractions.
The evaluation team found another case of horizontal linkage between traditional sectors and 
communication collectives. Producer CBOs can coordinate and increase their visibility by producing 
communication content based on this linkage. For example, in the municipality of Tarazá, a partnership 
between the CBO AGROAPITA and CMT Comunicaciones works to promote and raise the profile of the 
CBO in order to increase local honey consumption. At the same time, this communication activity 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 58
promotes positive values associated with the women beekeepers of the CBO, such as resilience, 
commitment, dedication, entrepreneurship, and community work, which are associated with community 
identity and recognition. 
F.5.5. CBOs report improved capacities interacting with the public and private sectors as a result of 
CDLO support, although this confidence is still under construction. From the perspective of CBO 
members, CDLO improved CBOs’ capacities to interact with the public and private sectors. The share 
of CBOs that reported that CDLO improved their capacity to interact with other actors stands at 69.2 
percent of producer CBOs, 53.4 percent of JACs, and 55.5 percent of other CBOs. Furthermore, 
members rated CBO support as “good” or “very good” at a rate of 84.2 percent across the three 
categories.
Capacity building for inter-institutional relationships has increased the expectations of CBOs that new 
development opportunities can emerge for the organizations and in the targeted territories. However, it 
is important to note that CBO's trust in other actors remains low. For example, only 12.9 percent of 
CBO members trust private companies in the region, and four to five of ten members stated that they 
trust these companies little or do not trust them at all.84 Concerning local government public entities 
(i.e., municipality and governor's office), a similar trend predominates, only 11.6 percent of members 
expressed “high levels” of trust, while 52.5 percent reported expressed having “little” or “none.”
F.5.6. The majority of CBOs interact with public actors in participatory spaces around public policies. Of 
the CBO directors surveyed, 67 percent stated that their organizations have participated in work or 
discussion spaces to develop their municipality or vereda. Producer CBOs have participated in 
constructing the 2020-2023 municipal development plan, while they have participated less in the 
Municipal Rural Development Council (CMDR) and sectoral production chain boards. It is worth noting 
that in the country's Northern region, there is greater participation in sectoral boards than in the 
Southern region. For JACs and other CBOs, the evaluation found that the highest incidence of
participation was in formulating development plans, followed by participation in CMDR. The evaluation 
team found that it was rare for other CBOs and JACs to participate in sectoral boards. The PDETs and 
Action Plans for Regional Transformation also provide participatory spaces, and the evaluation team
found that 37 percent of CBOs have participated in these spaces. Six out of ten CBOs rated the 
response to demands, requests, or suggestions that they presented in participatory spaces as “good” or 
“very good.” This perception showed no differences by type of CBO or region. 
F.5.7. CDLO has generated opportunities to strengthen the relationship between CBOs and the public 
and private sectors. As a result of the implementation of CDLO activities, opportunities for CBOs and 
the private and public sectors to interact have increased. These findings have already been discussed in 
previous evaluation questions. For example, in question two, the evaluation addresses the relationship 
between producer CBOs and the private sector in seeking to conclude commercial agreements. In 
question four, the evaluation team discussed the relationship between JACs and the municipality and 
governors’ offices. 
84 The survey question on trust in companies shows that 12.9 percent of CBOs trust private companies a lot. Between 40.0 
percent and 50.0 percent of CBO members have little or no trust in companies. The question did not break down responses by 
type of companies.
59 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Other interrelationships can also emerge between public governments and CBOs in the context of 
CDLO-funded activities. For example, the evaluation team found cases where CBO producers of coffee, 
potato, vegetables, or chontaduro interacted with local institutions, such as schools where libraries are 
located. These interactions aim to solve specific issues and achieve the objectives of CDLO-funded 
projects. In the cases of El Tambo and Samaniego, the institutions and actors involved in the 
development of the library are the municipality (which provides economic resources), the community 
(which includes cleaning work and minor repairs), educational institutions (which provide the space), the 
JACs of Cuatro Esquinas and Chuguldi veredas (which provide knowledge and content), and the National 
Library (which provides materials and supplies). The evaluation team also found cases in which young 
people with training in digital production (such as web development) provide communication services 
(enhancing information on production, marketing, and financial statements) to associations such as 
ABADES (coffee), COOINPROSAM (potatoes and vegetables), and APACH (chontaduro).85 
The library case is not the only example of a successful vertical linkage derived from the multilevel 
dialogue strategy. Other significant cases include coffee cupping in Samaniego, cocoa tasting in Caquetá 
and Putumayo, a school for rubber tappers in the Guaviare (supported by SENA) and cycling and soccer 
activities in El Tambo (supported by the Sports Secretariat).
It is worth noting that changing public policy is not one of CDLO’s core purposes across its 
interventions. Instead, the Activity’s model implies an approach in which support from public policies for 
CBOs could be achieved after CBO strengthening and development.
F.5.8. The communication activities supported by CDLO are successful in creating new meanings for 
local identity and culture, as well as making known and amplifying the messages derived from the 
multilevel dialogues. The multilevel dialogue mechanism is based on a contextual reality: regions and 
entire populations are stigmatized by violence and illicit drug trafficking economies. Therefore, 
communication collectives open spaces for reflection. In these spaces, projects that seek to create new 
collective meanings for the community´s identity and cultivate pride and a sense of belonging to the 
territory can flourish.
The campaign Despierta tu espíritu (“Awaken your spirit”) in Valle de Guamuez provides an example. The
campaign sought to generate a sense of belonging in communities with high levels of migration from 
other regions of the country. Participants created murals alluding to the history and characteristics of 
the municipality, and they printed T-shirts with messages such as putumayense de corazón (putumayense in 
my heart).86 Community members, especially youth, wrote messages and took part in making the 
murals. This is shown in a CBO’s comment below and in the following photo (see Exhibit 16).
They supported the youth week. Then they held different events, among them muralism, what do you call that 
technique for stamping? I forget the word, screen, and muralism workshops focused on art. Interview with 
CBO. Valle del Guamuez, La Hormiga.
85 See Annex II. Supplemental Analysis and Data, COOINPROSAM case study. 86 Putumayense refers to a person from the department of Putumayo. 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 60
Exhibit 16. Despierta tu espíritu (mural campaign)
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION - MEL FIELD WORK
CONCLUSIONS
C.5.1. Building on the trust generated by economic and infrastructure projects, the multilevel dialogue 
mechanism has constructed and strengthened interdependence networks between CBOs. Through 
these networks, licit economies have flourished in communities where, in the past, armed conflict
affected relationships and communication between actors (Findings 5.1 and 5.2).
C.5.2. Horizontal linkages facilitated by CDLO between traditional and non-traditional economy CBOs 
have created interrelationships and values based on the territory's potential and its different actors 
(Findings 5.3 and 5.4). 
C.5.3. CDLO has successfully built capacity, opportunities, and trust that allow CBOs to communicate 
and strengthen relationships with the public and private sectors; most CBOs already interact 
predominantly with public stakeholders (Findings 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7). 
C.5.4. Communication strategies (e.g., mural painting, music, radio) have redefined the collective 
identity of municipalities stigmatized by drug trafficking and armed conflict, generating a sense of 
belonging, pride, and self-worth. However, there is additional space to continue supporting and 
increasing the scope of these strategies (Finding 5.8).
RECOMMENDATIONS 
R.5.1. Systematize and disseminate the multilevel dialogue strategy implemented by CDLO, promoting 
its replication by other USAID activities and other actors, thus articulating more voices for territorial 
development (Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). 
R.5.2. Expand the scale of the existing multilevel dialogue strategy to also generate horizontal dialogue 
and coordination between CBOs, including between those supported by CDLO and other USAID 
activities, both at the local level and across regions. This is a means to scale up dialogue, horizontal 
transfer of knowledge, and to form and consolidate networks throughout different territories 
(Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). 
R.5.3. Design and implement a strategy to deepen and expand the scope of the content created by the 
communication groups supported by CDLO as a mechanism to disseminate the approaches and 
achievements of territorial projects supported by the Activity (Conclusion 5.4).
61 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TERRITORIAL CONTRIBUTION
Q6: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS CDLO’S CONTRIBUTION BEEN TO THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 
DEVISED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA THROUGH DIFFERENT PLANNING 
INITIATIVES? 
FINDINGS 
F.6.1. CDLO has contributed to the design and implementation of policies and projects; for example, it 
has supported local authorities in presenting PDET projects or connecting and complementing 
investments. This evaluation did not identify a specific contribution by the Activity to the design of public 
policy, which is not a direct objective of the Activity. Nonetheless, the evaluation team found that, in 
some cases, CDLO supported policy design. For instance, CDLO provided technical assistance to local 
governments for funding submissions to the national government, particularly for PDETs. In the 
municipality of Timbiquí, officials from the municipality worked hand-in-hand with CDLO to establish the 
municipal development plan and align the plan with PDETs. 
CDLO was also able to establish relationships with local officials. For example, CDLO supported local 
governments in strengthening planning processes, managing resources at different territorial levels, and 
formulating projects. A local government official said: 
We did an exercise of placing a map, and it showed us different road improvements made by different actors in 
the territory, then, some of them with resources from CDLO, others with resources from the Municipality, and 
that generate a series of points on the map where different actors contribute. Interview with the local 
government official. Tarazá– La Caucana – San Miguel.
The evaluation also found that in specific infrastructure projects financed by CDLO and executed by 
JACs, the municipalities participated by sharing machinery and complementary construction material. 
Thus, CDLO contributed to increasing the reach of public investments. 
F.6.2. Some achievements were evident in the connection and coordination between CDLO and 
government entities (ART, SENA) and with other international development programs. Coordination 
between CDLO´s activities and the municipalities occurred in some processes in their initial phase, but 
there is no evidence of sustained joint work throughout the Activity´s implementation. The CDLO
Territorial Evaluation Spaces promotes participation and coordination in the design of producer CBO 
activities. CDLO made significant advances in the operational coordination of specific activities with the 
ART Territorial Coordinating Offices, such as territorial diagnostics. The evaluation team found that it 
was occasionally possible to coordinate CBO activities with projects foreseen in the PDET or municipal 
development plans. However, CDLO did not participate in the Institutional Promotion Boards set up by 
the ART to monitor the local execution of PDET projects.
The evaluation team also found that CDLO created a relevant partnership with SENA as a strategic 
partner in providing technical training and consultancy activities. SENA is a crucial partner, as it has 
extensive territorial presence and experience. Entities such as the Colombian Agricultural Institute 
(ICA); the Ministry of Agriculture; and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Tourism also 
coordinated operations with CDLO around productive activities. 
Different actors stated that despite CDLO interactions with different entities, the scope of these 
collaborations was specific, and they did not promote exchanges at the municipal level nor with entities 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 62
at the regional level. This indicates that some opportunities for further collaboration with entities at the 
local level may be missed. 
It is also worth noting that national entities perceived interaction with CDLO at local levels as the result 
of individual efforts rather than agreements of the general CDLO model and operation. For example, a 
program of the Ministry of Commerce has been carried out with the same operational model in several 
territories where CDLO operates, but the interaction between these two actors only occurred in some 
of these territories. 
The interactions between CDLO and local governments are heterogeneous across the geographic 
corridors. In some cases, local authorities engage only to obtain information about CDLO proposals. In 
others, they participate actively as intermediaries between CDLO and the communities or with the 
national government. A government official stated:
Before the Program, everyone worked in isolation, each one of us, let's say, had our problems and our 
administrative difficulties and started to solve them from within. When CDLO arrives...it begins to articulate and 
make us sit at a table with those involved in or related to the activity that will be developed. Interview with a 
local government official. San José de Fragua, Piedemonte San José.
The evaluation found that local authorities rarely participate in the design or implementation of CDLO 
activities, while territorial officers of the ART and SENA had a more active engagement. Changes in local 
governments are one factor impeding coordination and joint work with the public sector. Changes in 
local governments usually result in changes in policy priorities and the end of previous agreements, as 
expressed by a national-level CDLO official: 
When new local authorities arrive, when there are new elections, when there are new governors, and then the 
processes get a little lost, but finally if you manage to leave a solid ground with the communities, they are the 
ones that can effectively become what we call effective partners to continue moving all these initiatives forward. 
Interview with CDLO national staff member. 
Due to the characteristics of the territories where CDLO operates, international development agencies 
maintain a strong presence in these areas. For instance, 29.1 percent of CBO directors stated that their 
organization had participated in other territorial development programs unrelated to CDLO, and 19.2 
percent indicated that since 2018, their CBO had received development resources to participate in 
projects related to territorial development. In addition, USAID funded 53 percent of these programs in 
the targeted geographic corridors, other development agencies funded 39.3 percent, the national
government funded 40.4 percent, and local governments funded 28 percent.87 
CDLO seeks to collaborate with international development programs in the territories to generate 
synergies and, as a result, achieve a more significant impact from their activities. However, despite these 
efforts, the evaluation found that sometimes it is only possible to exchange diagnostic information with 
other development programs, share planning spaces, or carry out specific actions, because while the 
87 The survey question was a multiple-choice question, while a single program could have multiple funding sources. Therefore,
the value of the response may exceed 100.0 percent.
63 | COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
different actors and programs work on similar issues, the purposes of their interventions, populations 
targeted, timing, activities, and criteria for intervention and follow-up differ from one another. 
It is not to make the intervention of four, five agencies, but at least to make one, but to make one with enough 
resources to help transform the territory and that the impact is really what is expected because there have been 
several cooperation projects...that haven't made an impact...there are some complements that overlap...where
they overlap with the same organizations, .... I’m already doing this with such and such, so as a beneficiary, I 
receive all the support from one, two, or three cooperation agencies, and the result is not what you expected, or 
maybe it is done, but it is over, they left and the sustainability over time won't last. Interview with a local 
official of a national government entity. Tumaco, Dosquebradas – La Espriella
Lastly, CDLO seeks to coordinate with the private sector as a strategic actor in the intervention model. 
However, it faces difficulties related to stigmatization (i.e., perceptions that disincentivize private actors 
from investing in territories perceived as insecure and remote or working with CBOs). Other barriers 
to engagement include infrastructure restrictions in the territories, insecurity, and limited technical and 
financial capacity. CDLO national-level staff stated: 
It is not easy for the private sector to go to these territories, the infrastructure is not good for the private sector to 
dare to come, and they don't find partners to work with.... we want them to trust the territory and stay in the 
territory, to continue believing. So, there we have found initiatives of a small private sector, of many 
entrepreneurs, of young people who have initiatives and who want to be part of these territories, but who also 
need someone to tell them, hey, you can do it, look, I introduce you to this association of producers, this group of 
young people. Interview with CDLO national staff member.
Conditions are very limited for producers. The intervention of private enterprise in this type of region is low to 
almost zero due to the same security conditions and technological development of the different products 
produced at peasant economy level. Interview with CDLO territorial staff member.
F.6.3. CDLO has supported the participation of CBOs in local participation processes. The evaluation 
found that CDLO empowers and supports CBOs to participate in local instances of planning and follow￾up of territorial development. According to CBO directors, 67 percent of the organizations have 
participated in discussion forums for municipal development, of which 40.1 percent have participated in 
municipal rural development councils and 38.7 percent of producer CBOs in sectoral boards for 
production chains. 
F.6.4. To date, there is little evidence of direct contributions by the Activity to adjust public policy 
processes; for example, extensively systematizing and disseminating participatory methodologies, good 
practice guides, or brochures of systematized successful interventions of the program to other actors
could increase the possibilities of scaling up and replicating CDLO models in other types of programs.
The different actors who participated in the evaluation recognized the value of CDLO methodologies. 
These methodologies contributed to the relevance of the activities and strengthened the administrative, 
technical, and commercial capacities of CBOs. However, despite the strengths of these methodologies, 
there is no evidence that other development programs, or national or territorial governments, have 
incorporated CDLO participatory methodologies into their interventions. 
We found one interesting case in which local authorities sought to replicate CDLO interventions with a 
JAC that had not been part of CDLO for infrastructure construction. A government official indicated: 
USAID.GOV COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LICIT OPPORTUNITIES MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 64
Look, my friend, this has been so important that at this moment, (detail removed) Community Action Boards 
reviewing their paperwork, reviewing everything... the target is that by June, they should all be able to contract 
because, just as you did, we are going to do a couple of works from the municipality that can be contracted with 
them, we are going to do it. And we are also working with the Agency of Territorial Renewal to follow that 
example.” Interview with a local government official - Puerto Libertador.
This example reflects the potential for other actors to replicate the intervention model and 
methodologies, even if these actors were not part of CDLO.
CONCLUSIONS 
C.6.1. CDLO has promoted the participation of CBOs in formal spaces for local participation and 
planning and has supported coordination processes with territorial and national government entities. 
However, there is an opportunity to further strengthen joint work for constituting and implementing 
territorial development initiatives (Findings 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3). 
C.6.2. CDLO methodologies recognized as valuable by different actors have not yet been systematized 
or transferred to other actors who were not initially part of the Activity. There is an opportunity to 
share this knowledge and replicate CDLO activities in other programs and government policies (Finding 
6.4).
RECOMMENDATIONS
R.6.1. Strengthen the coordination between USAID programs implemented in the CDLO territories to 
advance possible integration efforts that allow supporting the territories and communities under a 
differential intervention approach responding to specific needs (Conclusions 6.1 and 6.2). 
R.6.2. Strengthen the coordination strategy between USAID, other development agencies, NGOs, and 
public actors that operate in a territory, so that the initiatives carried out by each are known and 
coordinated. This seeks to minimize duplication of efforts between different actors and achieve a more 
coordinated process that leverages and integrates resources and activities to increase development 
interventions and access to goods and services (Conclusions 6.1 and 6.2). 
R.6.3. Design a strategy to strengthen the participation of CBOs in the territorial planning processes, 
including within the framework of the Territorial Planning Councils, for exercises related to the PND 
2022-2026 and local institutional strengthening processes (Conclusion 6.1). 
R.6.4. Consider the feasibility of CDLO acting as an external technical adviser in participatory
processes, including those of the PDETs. Recognize the relevance of participatory spaces in leveraging
and defining investments that can contribute to closing gaps in access to goods and services and in
strengthening clusters of licit economies in the territories prioritized by the Activity (Conclusion 6.1 and 
6.2). 
R.6.5. Strengthen and expand the development of communication sessions on the results and lessons 
learned from CDLO operations with local governments, national government agencies, other 
development agencies, union organizations, and other relevant actors promoting territorial development 
(Conclusion 6.2).
65 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX I : RECOMMENDATIONS ACTIONS MATRIX
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
1 R.1.1. Continue 
working on developing 
nuclei of legal 
economies in the 
territories most 
affected by poverty 
and violence. 
(Conclusion 1.1)
R.1.1. Continue working 
to generate clusters of 
licit economies in the 
territories most affected 
by poverty and violence 
(Conclusion 1.1)
1.1. To define whether it is necessary to continue working on the 
generation of nuclei of licit economies in the CDLO municipalities or 
others through future activities with objectives like those of CDLO, 
design, based on the results of the mid-term evaluation, the final 
evaluation, and the final advances in the program indicators, an index 
of consolidation of nuclei of licit economies. This index can consider 
aspects such as what type of networks, actors, interrelationships, 
densities, and durations make up a nucleus of the legal economy and 
what is understood by a consolidated nucleus. Those CDLO 
territories in which a nucleus of the legal economy has been 
consolidated could be replaced in future programs by other 
territories. The analysis of consolidated nuclei should be 
complemented with an analysis of public territorial targeting and plans 
(e.g., PDET) and the targeting of other USAID programs.
Medium-term (up to 
two years)
USAID
2 R.1.2. Publish a 
document 
systematizing the 
program's targeting 
process, including how 
strategic corridors, 
municipalities, and 
CBOs were selected, 
what was learned from 
this process, and 
recommendations for 
targeting future similar 
activities. (Conclusion 
1.2 and 1.3)
R.1.2. Publish a 
document systematizing 
the Activity's targeting 
process, including how 
strategic corridors, 
municipalities, and CBOs 
were selected; what was 
learned from this 
process; and 
recommendations for 
future similar activities 
(Conclusions 1.2 and 1.3)
1.2. The targeting systematization document should discuss, among 
others: i) the process of reading and analyzing local economic, social 
and productive conditions (including existing diagnoses and previous 
knowledge and experiences) and how this is taken into account for 
targeting of territories; ii) the way in which other territorial targeting 
exercises were taken into account (for example, public programs such 
as PDET, PNIS, other USAID activities or other cooperation 
activities); iii) if there was, how was the dialogue with local 
governments to define which territories to enter; iv) the advantages 
and disadvantages of working in corridors that do not necessarily 
correspond to administrative divisions (municipalities); v) how 
organizations were mapped within a territory; vi) how was the 
dialogue process for choosing which organizations to work with; vii) if 
there should be a strengthened prioritization of organizations with 
greater participation of young people, rural women, ethnic minorities, 
victims, among other population groups; viii) whether it is strategic to 
work only with the most mature organizations in a territory or with a 
mix of organizations by the level of maturity; ix) the considerations 
and precautions to be taken into account so that a program manages 
to enter territories characterized by high levels of insecurity and 
presence of illicit crops and, x) the considerations and precautions 
for a program to enter territories characterized by low local 
institutional capacity, The results and annexes of this evaluation are an 
input for the preparation of this systematization document.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 66
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
3 R.1.3. Manage alliances 
with the public and 
private sectors and 
with international 
cooperation agencies 
to identify and 
articulate strategies to 
increase the access of 
CBOs and 
communities to ICTs, 
as well as to 
strengthen their digital 
skills. (Conclusion 1.2)
R.1.3. Manage alliances 
with the public and 
private sectors and with 
international 
development agencies to 
identify and articulate 
strategies to increase the 
access of CBOs and 
communities to 
Information and 
Communications 
Technology and 
strengthen their digital 
skills (Conclusion 1.2)
1.3. Establish contact with the Ministry of Communication 
Technologies, mayors, governors, development agencies working in 
the territory, and local Internet operators, among others, to identify 
strategies and actions that are being implemented or will be 
implemented to i) increase Internet coverage in the areas targeted by 
the CDLO; ii) provide communities or organizations with 
technological equipment; iii) offer training in digital skills. This 
information can be an input to guide and strengthen program actions 
or even target new USAID activities, seeking to reduce possible 
connectivity barriers as contextual factors that can limit the operation 
and sustainability of a program.
Medium-term (up to 
two years)
Both
4 R.1.4. Define a 
contingency plan that 
allows the program to 
respond more quickly 
and effectively to 
external shocks that 
may arise, including 
strikes, pandemics, and 
climatic events, among 
other events that may 
limit mobility, 
communication, and 
the performance of 
economic and social 
activities in a territory. 
(Conclusion 1.3)
R.1.4. Analyze and 
systematize elements of 
contingency plans that 
allow CDLO to respond 
quickly and effectively to 
future challenges that 
may arise, including 
strikes, pandemics, and 
climate events, among 
other events that may 
limit mobility, 
communication, and the 
performance of 
economic and social 
activities in a territory
(Conclusion 1.3)
1.4. To develop the contingency plan, write a document systematizing 
the actions that were taken to adapt the operation of the program to 
the Covid-19 pandemic and the economic reactivation process, 
identifying in which areas, activities, teams, and territories it was 
easier to adapt the operation, and in which aspects it is necessary to 
define additional actions and protocols to facilitate adaptation to 
future contingencies.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
5 R.2.1. Publish and 
disseminate a 
document 
systematizing the 
lessons learned from 
CDLO´s practical 
support model for 
CBOs, identifying 
good practices and 
generating 
R.2.1. Publish and 
disseminate a document 
systematizing the lessons 
learned from CDLO´s 
practical support model 
for CBOs, identifying 
good practices and 
generating 
recommendations for 
future support carried 
2.1. The document should: i) be divided into chapters for JACs, 
productive CBOs, and other CBOs, so that the chapters can be 
disseminated together or separately; it should also be divided into the 
model to support infrastructure vs. productive and social 
infrastructure; ii) explain the different models, that is, the participatory 
approach of learning by doing; iii) analyze whether it recommends 
implementing the support model differently for more and less mature 
organizations (for example, those that already generated income vs. 
those that did not); iv) in terms of support to other CBOs, it can 
emphasize lessons learned for the support of entrepreneurship of 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
67 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
recommendations for 
future support carried 
out by CDLO or 
other programs. 
(Conclusion 2.1)
out by CDLO and/or 
other programs
(Conclusion 2.1). 
creative industries in rural areas as well as how to support cultural 
experiences to re-signify the territory and create economic 
opportunities. This chapter could be socialized with MinComercio 
(Vice-Ministry of Creativity and Orange Economy and Directorate of 
Mipymes) and MinCultura. In terms of support for JAC, the emphasis 
could be placed on efficiency in execution, social control, legitimacy, 
and installed capacity in these organizations as executors of 
infrastructure and maintenance works. This chapter could be 
socialized with the Ministry of the Interior (Directorate of 
Participation). Regarding support for productive CBOs, emphasis 
could be placed on generating organizational, technical, and 
commercial capacities through walking projects (learning by doing). 
This chapter could be socialized with various entities, including 
MADR, MinComercio (Mipymes Directorate), UAOES, ADR, ART, 
SENA, and Prosperidad Social. This document, or parts of it, could be 
written and disseminated as Policy Papers, contributing to the 
generation of knowledge on topics related to territorial development. 
The document could also be disseminated within USAID, including 
through CLA workshops.
6 R.2.2. Strengthen the 
support, 
accompaniment, and 
follow-up of the 
commercialization 
activities of the 
productive CBOs, 
including 
accompaniment in 
complementary 
activities such as 
quality certifications, 
when market 
conditions and the 
capacities of the CBOs 
so require. 
(Conclusion 2.2)
R.2.2. Continue 
strengthening the 
support, accompaniment, 
and follow-up to 
commercialization 
activities of producer 
CBOs to deepen and 
scale commercialization 
results by working jointly 
with private actors 
(Conclusion 2.2). 
2.2. Aspects that could strengthen the commercial support strategy 
include considering having two different emphases, in addition to the 
existing distinction of traditional and non-traditional economies: first 
for the establishment of new alliances, and the second for the 
sustainability of established alliances. Other aspects that can 
strengthen commercial support include elements such as: i) providing 
close support to the management of commercial alliances before, 
during and after their negotiation; ii) developing a directory of buyers 
and local business partners and make it available to CBOs that benefit 
from the program; iii) continuing to accompany, when required by 
the commercial partner and when the CBO has sufficient capacity to 
do so, the processing of certifications such as BPA, FairTrade, 
Transfair, Global Gap, Denomination of Origin, among others; iv) 
provide support and training on related issues such as collection 
processes, quality standards, packaging processes, distribution; v) 
continue strengthening the market-oriented focus of working jointly 
with private-allies ; vi) implement a strategy for monitoring and 
reporting with further detail on the sustainability of trade agreements, 
for example, CDLO including in its reports shares of accompanied and 
signed trade agreements from the total of CBOs, differentiating these 
shares by traditional and non-traditional economies, amounts of 
signed agreements, terms of signed agreements; vii) strengthen the 
relation and incentives to be provided to private partners so that their 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 68
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
commercial relations with targeted CBOs are deepened and, viii) 
articulate the commercialization support with initiatives and spaces 
such as the National Technical Table for Local Public Food Purchases, 
the Law on Local Public Purchases, and other public or private 
strategies for short marketing circuits.
7 R.2.3. Strengthen the 
accompaniment and 
training provided to 
CBOs in terms of 
conflict resolution, 
trust, teamwork, and 
leadership renewal. 
(Conclusion 2.3)
R.2.3. Strengthen, as part 
of the integral support 
provided to CBOs, the 
accompaniment and 
training provided to 
CBOs in terms of 
conflict resolution, trust, 
teamwork, and possible 
leadership renewal 
(Conclusion 2.3). 
2.3. CDLO could either manage alliances with other actors or design 
in-house workshops and work sessions with the participation of all 
associates, focused on strengthening the issues of cooperation, 
teamwork, leadership, and the relevance of strengthening the social 
fabric within organizations. Practical activities (learning by doing) can 
also be conducted to strengthen these aspects, for example, collective 
social projects (family day, mingas, community projects, etc.). These 
support activities should be carried out within the integrated support 
provided to CBOs. To this end, existing training tools can be used as 
an as input, and the independent use of these by CBOs can be 
promoted. Existing tools could include those mapped by the Self￾Strengthening Instrument for Rural Producer Organizations that the 
MADR is currently designing, as well as the MyCoop course (UAEOS) 
or SENA online courses such as i) Creativity for the solution of labor 
conflicts; ii) Development of emotional intelligence personally and at 
work; iii) Formation of talented, comprehensive, and competitive 
leaders; iv) Decision-making at the managerial level and, v) a Solidarity 
Economy course. Possible barriers to Internet access and the digital 
skills of CBOs should be considered in encouraging online courses.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
8 R.2.4. Publish and 
disseminate a 
document 
systematizing the 
design, 
implementation, and 
lessons learned from 
the training, 
internship, and 
exchange strategy for 
rural youth developed 
by CDLO. 
(Conclusion 2.1)
R.2.4. Publish and 
disseminate a document 
systematizing the design, 
implementation, and 
lessons learned from the 
training, internship, and 
exchange strategies 
targeting rural youth 
developed by CDLO 
(Conclusion 2.1). 
2.4. The document must present how work with rural youth was 
designed and operationalized and its main achievements, including 
specific success stories. This document could be disseminated among 
for example: i) the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 
(Directorate of Rural Women, which handles the issue of youth); ii) 
the National Roundtable for Rural Youth Employability and 
Entrepreneurship coordinated by the DNP; iii) SENA; iv) development 
agencies that work with rural youth organizations and, iv) local 
governments. This dissemination is with the objective of sharing the 
strategy so that other actors can replicate it. The report and annexes 
of this evaluation are an input for the systematization document.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
9 R.2.5. Design and 
implement an internal 
R.2.5. Design and 
implement internal and 
2.5. The internal component of the communication strategy can be 
aimed at making visible and explicitly incorporating the relevance of 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
We understand the 
exsistence of the 
69 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
and external 
communication 
strategy to make the 
relevance and benefits 
of being part of the 
culture of legality in 
CDLO territories 
more visible. 
(Conclusion 2.4)
external communication 
strategies to specifically 
highlight the relevance 
and benefits of being part 
of the culture of legality 
in CDLO territories 
(Conclusion 2.4). 
the culture of legality into CDLO's support processes for CBOs, and 
how capacity building can contribute to it in the territory. The 
external component of the communication strategy may be aimed at 
disseminating the importance and advantages of the culture of legality 
among the community and other actors. With regard to external 
dissemination, posters or mini brochures can be designed (if it is 
impossible to do so physically or digitally). Alliances can be established 
with CBOs from the creative economy sector, for example, 
establishing this as an activity or product to be carried out within the 
framework of the CDLO work with these organizations. Additionally, 
alliances with community radio stations or other local communication 
media can be managed to disseminate the material.
visibility and 
communication 
activities of the 
program. In this 
recommendation, 
what we seek is to aim 
at the communication 
strategy on THE 
IMPORTANCE OF 
THE CULTURE OF 
LEGALITY, lo+119
10 R.3.1. Design and 
implement a strategy 
to promote the 
effective and extensive 
use of productive and 
social infrastructure 
and productive assets 
provided with CDLO 
support. (Conclusions 
3.1 and 3.2)
R.3.1. Design and 
implement actions to 
expand the effective and 
extensive use of 
productive and social 
infrastructure and 
productive assets 
provided with CDLO 
support, generating 
sustained positive 
impacts in the local 
economy (Conclusions 
3.1 and 3.2). 
3.1. Taking as input i) the analysis and recommendations of USAID´s 
Infrastructure Assessment for the subset of CDLO activities; ii) 
participatory workshops to be carried out with CBOs; iii) the results 
and annexes of this evaluation; and iv) if required, further visits to 
CDLO´s social and productive infrastructure sites, identify the current 
state of infrastructure and assets, usage patterns, the potential for use, 
and barriers to the expansion and effective use of the infrastructure. 
These findings include actions to continue strengthening and 
expanding the use of the infrastructure, for example, through the 
promotion of schemes for shared use between different CBOs (both 
supported and not supported by the program). Emphasize identifying 
possible actions to promote and expand vertical and horizontal 
integration around the use of infrastructure, going beyond CBOs 
directly benefited by CDLO. Consider different approaches to social 
vs. productive infrastructure when identifying barriers and proposing 
actions. 
In future productive infrastructure works, carry out post-delivery 
follow-up reports, for instance, through a simple form CBOs can fill 
out periodically (e.g., every six months) reporting aspects such as i) if 
the infrastructure is in use; ii) how many people use it approximately; 
iii) how many organizations use it approximately; iv) what state the 
infrastructure is in; v) if there is any charge for the use of the 
infrastructure and if so, what is the cost; vi) who manages the charge 
for the use of the infrastructure, among other aspects. A manual of 
recommendations for the use of infrastructure could be prepared and 
delivered to the CBOs after the infrastructure has been delivered.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
11 R.3.2. Prioritize in 
future CDLO support 
or future programs 
R.3.2. Continue 
combining actions to 
diversify the economy 
Define objective criteria or guidelines for determining whether 
support should be directed towards investments or actions to add the 
value of primary transform products, as this emphasis should be 
Medium-term (up to 
two years)
Both
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 70
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
implemented in these 
territories, support for 
the generation of 
added value and 
transformation of 
products from 
traditional economies, 
in which CBOs 
currently concentrate 
their activities. 
(Conclusion 3.1)
and support the 
production and 
commercialization of 
sustainable products that 
are part of traditional 
economies in future 
CDLO support or future 
programs implemented 
in the territories 
(Conclusion 3.1). 
pursued only when market conditions allow doing so. 3.2. The 
prioritization of productive lines of traditional economies in future 
actions or programs should continue taking into account 
environmental considerations, as well as livelihoods and productive 
investments prioritized in each territory by different planning 
mechanisms (Master Plan for the Structuring of Economic Reactivation 
carried out by the ART for the implementation of PDETS, PND, Local 
Development Plans, CONPES 3866 National Productive Development 
Policy, Atlas of Economic Complexity, competitiveness councils, 
among others), as well as other development programs operating in 
the targeted territories, to ensure that interventions are 
complementary rather than to duplicate efforts. The definition of 
productive lines should continue to be led by a market-opportunity 
approach, considering the presence of local buyers of different types 
of products, so that increased marketing possibilities emerge, including 
short marketing circuits. The previously recommended directory of 
buyers could also be an input for this analysis.
12 R.3.3. Design and 
implement a 
sustainability strategy 
for the support 
granted to CBOs, 
depending on the type 
of organization and 
productive activity, 
with particular 
emphasis on directing 
CBOs to other 
complementary 
programs that 
contribute to an 
attention route 
approach and 
contribute to the 
indicators of leveraged 
resources by the 
program. (Conclusion 
3.3)
R.3.3. Strengthen actions 
carried out to guarantee 
the sustainability of the 
support granted by 
CDLO to CBOs, 
depending on the type of 
organization and 
productive activity, with 
special emphasis on 
achieving 
complementarity in the 
access by CBOs to other 
programs. This will 
ensure that the support 
provided by CDLO is 
part of an integrated but 
finite intervention model 
while contributing to the 
indicators of leveraged 
resources by the 
program (Conclusion 
3.3)
3.3. As a basis for these actions, carry out an exercise with the 
territorial coordinators to identify the risks for the sustainability of 
the support granted by the CDLO in each of the targeted 
departments. Strengthen the identification of different categories of 
risks: i) commercialization risks; ii) production risks; iii) security risks; 
iv) risks in associative relationships; v) risks in articulation with other 
actors. Ideally, for the identification of risks, a departmental workshop 
should be held (face-to-face, or if this is not possible, virtual) where a 
working group methodology is used. Workshop reports must be 
analyzed by a CDLO consultant to identify common risks and classify 
them by analytical categories. After having the input systematized, it is 
recommended that meetings be held with the CDLO national team 
and the territorial coordinators to design a sustainability strategy that 
responds to the identified risks. One of the components of the 
sustainability strategy could be to continue strengthening the routing 
of CBOs to complementary programs provided by other actors. For 
CBOs from non-traditional economies (for example, tourism or 
creative industries) support their coordination with buyers and 
operators on a regional and national scale that can expand the 
potential markets. For productive CBOs, analyze routing 
opportunities through strategies and offices of the national 
government such as the Productive Rural Associativity Route 
(MADR); the National Technical Table for Income Generation, 
Associativity and Rural Marketing, PIDAR (ADR), Campo Emprende, 
and Productive Alliances (MADR), SENA Emprende Rural, the 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
71 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
Agricultural Extension Subsystem, among others. Likewise, manage 
possible referrals of CBOs to other USAID programs and those of 
other development actors. 
13 R.3.4. Design and 
implement a strategy 
to support CBOs in 
identifying and 
managing financing 
alternatives necessary 
to continue or scale 
the activities of the 
productive CBOs 
supported by CDLO. 
(Conclusion 3.3 and 
3.4)
R.3.4. Design and 
implement a strategy to 
support CBOs in 
identifying and managing 
alternative financing 
necessary to continue or 
scale their productive 
activities (Conclusions 
3.3 and 3.4). 
3.4. The strategy should build on ongoing financial capacity-building 
actions, complementing these with the identification and 
accompaniment of CBOs in their application to different financing 
alternatives according to the needs and capacities of each 
organization. Accompaniment can be considered for access to 
microcredit, associative credit, individual credit, Local Savings and 
Credit Groups, and application to financial resources granted by calls 
and programs. The strategy can be fed back and complemented 
through the joint work with other USAID teams and activities, 
including the team designing the new rural finance activity and the 
team leading USAID´s regional integration strategy. The design and 
implementation of the strategy could be informed by actions proposed 
in policy documents such as the Policy Guidelines for Productive Rural 
Associativity (MADR Resolution 161 of 2021).
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
14 R.3.5. Design and 
implement a strategy 
to facilitate and 
support the access of 
productive CBOs to 
the Agricultural 
Extension Subsystem 
(SEA) so that the 
capacity-building 
processes supported 
by the CDLO are 
complemented by 
access to specialized 
technical assistance 
that enhances the 
productive and 
commercial activities 
of organizations. 
(Conclusion 3.4)
R.3.5. Carry out actions 
to facilitate and support 
the access of producer 
CBOs to technical 
assistance, including 
through the public 
Agricultural Extension 
Subsystem (SEA), as well 
as other local market 
actors offering the 
service. By doing so, the 
capacity-building 
processes supported by 
the CDLO will be 
complemented by access 
to technical assistance 
that enhances the 
productive and 
commercial capacity of 
organizations 
(Conclusion 3.4). 
3.5. Through the regional coordinators, consult with the Secretariats 
of Agriculture or Planning of the local governments, the advances in 
the Departmental Plans for Agricultural Extension (PDEA) in each 
department to identify prioritized areas and production lines identify 
the EPSEAs that serve each territory. Manage and accompany CBOs
of productive activities in the application of agricultural extension 
services and other technical assistance suppliers in local markets.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 72
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
15 R.3.6. Analyze 
approaches, actions, 
or articulations in 
agroecological and 
environmentally 
sustainable production 
that are worth 
incorporating into the 
CDLO support model 
for productive CBOs, 
seeking to expand 
business opportunities 
that contribute to 
local, sustainable 
development. 
(Conclusion 3.4 and 
3.5)
R.3.6. Analyze 
approaches and actions 
to support green and 
environmentally 
sustainable products 
worth incorporating into 
the CDLO support 
model for producer 
CBOs, seeking to expand 
business opportunities 
that contribute to local, 
sustainable development 
(Conclusions 3.4 and 
3.5). 
3.6. Analyze or take inputs from strategies or guidelines already being 
implemented by other actors, including the agroecology policy (FAO￾MADR) and the regional Green Business programs (MADS). Likewise, 
take existing pedagogical tools as inputs, for example, SENA online 
courses that organizations can be encouraged to take on their own, 
such as i) Agroecology and rural development; ii) Organic farming; iii) 
practices and applications of ecological agriculture; iv) supervision and 
management of hazardous waste; v) structuring of a green and 
inclusive business model.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
16 R.3.7. Design and 
implement a strategy 
to monitor the 
economic 
performance of the 
productive CBOs 
supported by CDLO. 
(Conclusion 3.6)
R.3.7. Design and 
implement a strategy to 
deepen the quantitative 
and aggregated analysis 
of economic 
performance data of the 
producer CBOs 
supported by CDLO 
(Conclusion 3.6)
3.7. Design a simple form and update it quarterly or every six months 
according to the operational possibilities of CDLO. The updated 
information can be collected by phone, or organizations can be 
requested to fill it out through digital forms sent by mail or 
WhatsApp. The form must be designed to collect information, 
including production volumes, production costs, yields, adoption of 
quality standards, income generated, profits generated, and 
commercial alliances in place, among others. This data can be 
aggregated to be econometrically analyzed as a part of the final 
evaluation of the program.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
17 R.4.1. Design and 
implement a strategy 
to promote the 
infrastructure works 
execution model with 
JAC, taking advantage 
of the capacity 
generated and the 
possibilities of 
replication as a 
strategy to enhance 
local development. 
R.4.1. Design and 
implement a strategy to 
further document and 
promote the 
infrastructure projects 
execution model with 
JACs, taking advantage of 
the capacity generated 
and the possibilities of 
replication as a strategy 
to enhance local 
development as an input 
for USAID Colombia 
4.1. As part of the strategy and to generate inputs for USAID 
Colombia and other possible actors, it is recommended that CDLO 
develops the guide, "Execution model of infrastructure works in 
alliance with JAC." This guide should consider inputs from the CDLO 
support systematization document (recommendation 2.1.). In the 
guide, explore and make explicit alternatives so that the JAC can 
execute resources and works that comprise not only of roads but also 
educational and productive infrastructure, as well as promote the 
execution of maintenance works. Guidelines should emphasize the 
model as an efficient way to execute resources and projects and 
improve the management capacity of JACs, strengthen formalization 
processes in contracting and oversight and the legitimacy of JACs, and 
strengthen their relationship to local governments. The guide can be 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
73 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
(Conclusion 4.1, 4.2, 
4.3, 4.4., 4.5.)
(Conclusions 4.1, 4.2, 
4.3, 4.4. and 4.5.)
disseminated to all JACs in the country through the Ministry of 
Interior's Participation Directorate; it could also be disseminated 
through the Ministry of the Interior to all the municipal Government 
Secretaries. Complementing this process, and more internal to the 
operation of the program, CDLO could manage and join meetings 
between JAC and mayors of the territories where works have already 
been carried out under this model, to socialize the results and lessons 
learned and identify additional projects that the JACs can execute in 
the future. In this exercise, ‘placa huella’ works could be prioritized, 
starting with projects including those already executed by the JACs 
within the framework of CDLO. For future works carried out under
the program, this practice could be established as part of the 
operational process. The project would end with a meeting between 
CDLO, the JAC, and the local government that seeks to identify other 
possible works that could be carried out through the model. This 
would promote the immediate continuity of the process taking 
advantage of the installed capacity generated.
18 R.4.2. Analyze the 
relevance and 
possibility of 
eliminating program 
indicators CDLO-04-
C (Percentage 
increase in the number 
of citizens with access 
to public services 
provided by 
municipalities 
supported by CDLO) 
and CDLO-14-O 
(Percentage change in 
the school dropout 
rate), recognizing that 
these indicators 
respond to dynamics 
that exceed the 
operating capacity of 
the program. 
(Conclusion 4.6)
R.4.2. Analyze the scope, 
reach, and pertinence of 
including indicators such 
as CDLO-04-C 
(Percentage increase in 
the number of citizens 
with access to public 
services provided by 
municipalities supported 
by CDLO) and CDLO￾14-O (Percentage change 
in the school dropout 
rate) in future USAID 
programs, recognizing 
that these types of 
indicators respond to 
aggregate municipal 
effects that can exceed 
the operating capacity of 
a specific activity 
(Conclusion 4.6)
4.2 Carry out workshops within USAID to analyze this discussion, 
going beyond the specific CDLO case. For CDLO, a Data Quality 
Assessment could be considered to analyze suitability, pertinence and 
timing and to modify the scope of the aforementioned indicators.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 74
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
19 R.5.1. Systematize and 
disseminate the 
multilevel dialogue 
strategy implemented 
by CDLO, seeking its 
replication in other 
USAID activities and 
by other actors, thus 
articulating more 
voices for territorial 
development. 
(Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, 
5.3)
R.5.1. Systematize and 
disseminate the 
multilevel dialogue 
strategy implemented by 
CDLO, promoting its 
replication by other 
USAID activities and 
other actors, thus 
articulating more voices 
for territorial 
development 
(Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, and 
5.3). 
5.1. The following topics to be systematized may be included: i) the 
objectives and the specific elements of the strategy; ii) the types of 
actors involved; iii) the phases (for example, starting to build trust 
through the execution of specific projects); iv) the challenges, mistrust 
or barriers to dialogue that may arise; v) the types of articulations that 
can arise, for example, between productive and non-productive 
CBOs; vi) the relevance of communicating messages and results of the 
multilevel dialogue through communication actions. The strategy can 
be systematized in a didactic booklet, where some specific references 
or success stories are included, for which the results and annexes of 
this evaluation can be taken as input. The booklet can be 
complemented with other content that is easy to spread, including 
audiovisual material, infographics, podcasts, etc.). The developed 
material can be socialized among different actors, including i) USAID's 
CDLA Fridays; ii) other key actors supporting local development, e.g., 
UNDP; iii) institutional actors such as ART, as an input for their 
dialogue and participation processes around the PDET, the Ministry of 
the Interior (Directorate of Participation), the National Technical 
Table for Income Generation, Associativity and Rural Marketing (in 
the issues of horizontal networks between CBOs), among others. The 
disclosure of the strategy should place particular emphasis on actors 
from the private sector (unions, chambers of commerce, and 
businesspeople), who have had relatively minor participation in 
multilevel dialogues, and who could be invited to participate in the 
future through the disclosure of results already obtained.
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
20 R.5.2. Expand the scale 
of the multilevel 
dialogue strategy to 
generate dialogue and 
articulations between 
CBOs supported by 
CDLO and CBOs 
supported by other 
USAID activities, both 
at the local level and 
between regions, thus 
scaling the dialogue, 
the horizontal transfer 
of knowledge, and the 
formation of networks 
throughout the 
R.5.2. Expand the scale 
of the existing multilevel 
dialogue strategy to also 
generate horizontal 
dialogue and 
coordination between 
CBOs, including between 
those supported by 
CDLO and other USAID 
activities, both at the 
local level and across 
regions. This is a means 
to scale up dialogue, 
horizontal transfer of 
knowledge, and to form 
and consolidate 
networks throughout 
5.2. The strategy may contemplate holding territorial meetings 
attended by organizations in the same area, including across USAID 
programs. Likewise, virtual meetings can be considered between 
supported organizations that work in the same economic sector but 
are located in different territories, as CDLO has started to do. The 
workshops could consider a presentation on some topic by USAID
(for example, a brief talk on conflict management between associates, 
or a short presentation on what the instances of participation are and 
which ones exist) to have space for open dialogue later and for the 
potential formation of networks or even collaboration between 
organizations (for example, carrying out demonstrative visits between 
more and less mature organizations in a similar economic sector, as 
was done with the Territorios de Aprendizaje initiative within the 
framework of the economic empowerment pilots of USAID's 
institutional strengthening program for victims (VISP). The 
involvement of second-level rural organizations could also be relevant 
in expanding the multilevel dialogue strategy. The strengthening of 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
75 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
territory. (Conclusion 
5.1, 5.2, 5.3)
different territories
(Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, and 
5.3). 
horizontal ties can be helpful for communities to leverage investment 
resources that improve access to services and goods that spur local 
development. 
21 R.5.3. Design and 
implement a strategy 
to expand the scope 
of the content created 
by the communication 
groups supported by 
CDLO as a mechanism 
to disseminate the 
bets, approaches, and 
achievements of the 
territorial work 
supported by the 
program. (Conclusion 
5.4)
R.5.3. Design and 
implement a strategy to 
deepen and expand the 
scope of the content 
created by the 
communication groups 
supported by CDLO as a 
mechanism to 
disseminate the 
approaches and 
achievements of 
territorial projects 
supported by the Activity 
(Conclusion 5.4)
5.3. As an input for the strategy, an inventory of the supported 
communication projects could be made to group these by categories 
later on and establish actions to expand the scope of several projects 
simultaneously. For dissemination, it would be relevant to support the 
programs and USAID´s communication teams and work with local 
actors such as community radio stations or local government
institutional channels. 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
22 R.6.1. Strengthen the 
articulation between 
USAID programs 
implemented in the 
CDLO territories to 
advance in possible 
integrations that allow 
supporting the 
territories and 
communities under an 
attention route 
approach. 
(Conclusions 6.1 and 
6.2)
R.6.1. Strengthen the 
coordination between 
USAID programs 
implemented in the 
CDLO territories to 
advance possible 
integration efforts that 
allow supporting the 
territories and 
communities under a 
differential intervention 
approach responding to 
specific needs 
(Conclusions 6.1 and 6.2)
6.1. Start by identifying the different USAID programs in each CDLO 
zone. Hold meetings with the coordinators of each initiative to 
determine which activities, beneficiaries, and strategies could be 
integrated. For this exercise, it is important to identify differences 
between the operating models of different implementing partners and 
how these can be coordinated despite differences. Likewise, with 
regards to possible integration requirements, recognizing that there 
are other objectives, forms of intervention, and target populations, 
these can be implemented as an attention route (For example, 
identifying that a program provides basic organizational support to 
CBOs with low capacity and that these organizations can then be 
referred to another USAID program focused on providing more 
specialized support in commercialization processes to CBOs with 
greater capacity). This coordination strategy must be conducted in 
dialogue with local governments, so that they are aware of the 
initiatives being implemented locally, and of the collaboration among 
them. The possible joint effort can be reflected in simple action plans, 
which are implemented and reported on by the territorial 
coordinators of the different programs. 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
23 R.6.2. Strengthen the 
articulation strategy 
between USAID and 
R.6.2. Strengthen the 
coordination strategy 
between USAID, other 
6.2. The implementation of the coordination strategy may be like 
recommendation 6.1 (a first USAID in-house exercise, taken to a 
further level articulating CDLO to other cooperation and public 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Both
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 76
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
other cooperation 
agencies and NGOs 
that operate in a 
territory so that the 
initiatives carried out 
by each one is known 
and articulated, 
seeking to minimize 
duplication of efforts 
between different 
agencies and instead of 
achieving a more 
articulated work that 
leverages and integrate 
resources and 
activities that increase 
the potential impact of 
the different territorial 
development 
interventions. 
(Conclusion 6.1 and 
6.2)
development agencies, 
NGOs, and public actors 
that operate in a 
territory, so that the 
initiatives carried out by 
each are known and 
coordinated. This seeks 
to minimize duplication 
of efforts between 
different actors and 
achieve a more 
coordinated process that 
leverages and integrates 
resources and activities 
to increase development 
interventions and access 
to goods and services 
(Conclusions 6.1 and 
6.2). 
programs). This coordination must include alternatives to leverage 
financial resources in the targeted territories, must be created in close
dialogue, and should promote the leadership of local governments. 
These are key efforts to increase the efficiency and scope of 
investments that increase access to goods and services. These efforts 
could be articulated around USAID´s regional integration strategy.
24 R.6.3. Design a 
strategy to strengthen 
the participation of 
CBOs in territorial 
planning processes, 
including within the 
framework of the 
Territorial Planning 
Councils and for the 
exercises related to 
the PND 2022-2026. 
(Conclusion 6.1)
R.6.3. Design a strategy 
to strengthen the 
participation of CBOs in 
the territorial planning 
processes, including 
within the framework of 
the Territorial Planning 
Councils, for exercises 
related to the PND 
2022-2026 and local 
institutional 
strengthening processes
(Conclusion 6.1). 
6.3. Taking the results of the survey and interviews of this evaluation 
as an input, it is possible to identify which CBOs participate in 
planning and participation opportunities and which ones could require 
greater support on this front. Tools that already exist could be used 
to encourage participation, for example, the DNP Citizen Dialogue 
Practice Kit, the guide for the planning and construction of social and 
political agendas of the territory, or the Forumciv guide for the design 
of plans of participation and political influence for peace and 
reconciliation. These actions are critical to installing capacity in CBOs 
and communities to obtain investments and efforts to improve access 
to rural goods and services. These efforts are essential to complement 
(from the demand side) interventions aimed at increasing local 
institutional capacities (from the supply side). 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
25 R.6.4. Consider the 
feasibility of CDLO 
participating, through 
the territorial 
coordinators, as 
external technical 
R.6.4. Consider the 
feasibility of CDLO 
acting as an external 
technical adviser in 
participatory processes, 
including those of the 
6.4 For example, methodologies such as Territorial Evaluation Spaces 
could be transferred to participants in participatory spaces. Technical 
external advice could also be essential to supporting coordination 
between actors from an impartial, external advisory perspective. With 
regards to benchmarks of external support that territorial staff of 
USAID implementing partners can provide, one is the case of IOM 
Short-term (up to six 
months)
Activity IP
77 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 7. A: ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
# ORIGINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
FINAL 
RECOMMENDATION
HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
SUGGESTED 
TIMEFRAME
RECOMMENDATION 
IMPLEMENTATION 
RESPONSIBLE
advisers in 
participation processes 
or instances such as 
those of the PDETs, 
recognizing their 
relevance as spaces to 
manage infrastructure 
projects and social and 
productive services 
that can contribute to 
closing gaps and 
strengthening nuclei of 
legal economies in the 
territories prioritized 
by the program. 
(Conclusion 6.1 and 
6.2)
PDETs. Recognize the 
relevance of 
participatory spaces in 
leveraging and defining 
investments that can 
contribute to closing 
gaps in access to goods 
and services and in 
strengthening clusters of 
licit economies in the 
territories prioritized by 
the Activity (Conclusion 
6.1 and 6.2)
local coordinators of the institutional strengthening program for 
victims (VISP), who support (as external facilitators) the Municipal 
Tables for the Participation of Victims in their targeted municipalities. 
26 R.6.5. Carry out 
socialization sessions 
on the results and 
lessons learned from 
the CDLO operation 
with local 
governments, national 
government agencies, 
other cooperation 
agencies, union 
organizations, and 
other relevant actors 
for territorial 
development. 
(Conclusion 6.2)
R.6.5. Strengthen and 
expand the development 
of communication 
sessions on the results 
and lessons learned from 
CDLO operations with 
local governments, 
national government 
agencies, other 
development agencies, 
union organizations, and 
other relevant actors 
promoting territorial 
development. 
(Conclusion 6.2). 
6.5. Once the different methodologies, models, and results of the 
program have been systematized, as stated in several of the 
recommendations of this evaluation, meetings could be coordinated to 
disseminate these materials and, in general, the results of the program 
with relevant actors for territorial development. These include i) 
municipal and departmental governments of the targeted areas; ii) 
national government agencies (ADR, ART, MADR; AUNAP, Ministry 
of Culture, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of 
Transportation); iii) other development actors; iv) private sector 
actors; v) academia (national and local). Dissemination can include, as 
an item on an agenda, discussions on mechanisms to improve the 
alignment of local development initiatives in the future, including how 
to leverage financial resources from different sources to these 
territories.
Medium-term (up to 
two years)
USAID
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 78
ANNEX II: SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS AND DATA
The purpose of the case studies is to describe and understand in-depth a specific experience that is 
significant for the community and CDLO and to provide additional elements to answer the evaluation 
questions. We chose the cases intentionally, not randomly, to find a diversity of approaches, activities, 
and contexts that represent learning for CDLO and provide additional elements to answer one or more 
of the evaluation questions. We obtained the data for the case studies from the qualitative instruments 
applied in the evaluation, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, social mapping, and ethnographic 
tours. We used the thematic and territorial reports generated from the qualitative data coding as the 
basis for constructing the case studies. Table 8 presents the evaluation questions to which the case 
studies from the different territories contribute.
TABLE 8. CASE STUDIES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
EVALUATION 
QUESTION
GUAPI SAMANIEGO SAN JOSÉ DE 
FRAGUA
VALLE DE 
GUAMUEZ
Q1 X 
Q2 X X 
Q3 X X X 
Q4 X 
Q5 X X 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
Each case study is a separate piece and seeks to explain a particular process and to identify strengths 
and weaknesses, good practices, and opportunities for replication and scalability. The case studies 
allowed a horizontal comparison to find common patterns and focus on their contributions to territorial 
development. The case studies are structured in four sections. The first section presents the context in 
which the activity takes place. The second section describes the process carried out in the activity and 
the connection between the components or the relationship between actors. The third section contains 
the main findings derived from the process. The last section identifies lessons learned. 
We constructed four case studies presented in Table 8, which follow the methodology explained in the 
previous paragraphs. This document also includes a description of two activities in the fish farming and 
aquaculture chain, which is a summary the evaluation team is providing at the request of the 
implementing partner. We developed this summary based on two documents submitted by the 
implementing partner. Therefore, the description of these activities does not constitute a case study. 
1. SEMBLANZAS DEL RIO GUAPI MUSICAL GROUP - PACIFIC CULTURAL CORRIDOR
INTERVENTION CONTEXT: The Community Development and Licit Opportunities activity (CDLO) 
in the Cauca-Pacific corridor, which integrated the municipalities of Guapi, Timbiqui, and Lopez de Micai, 
began in 2019. CDLO's assessment incorporates the cultural diversity of the area with the presence of 
Community Councils in most of the territories along the rivers, the difficulties involved in river 
communication, and the precarious economic situation of local governments. CDLO identified different 
79 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
economic development opportunities in the territory, such as wild plant products for the manufacturing 
of homeopathic medicines (Rios Unidos women's association) in the upper Guapi and Napi rivers; 
mollusk and shrimp producer associations’ strengthening of the estuaries and mangroves at the mouth 
of the Guapi River; tourism and gastronomic development (Rios Unidos) in the Gunupi creek and beach 
to the north of the municipality; and strengthening and dissemination of traditional cultural activities, 
such as filigree jewelry (Miguel Campaz master workshop). Also identified were the lutherie school and 
the Semblanzas group musical project, which are activities developed in the urban area of the 
municipality. The case study will focus on the Semblanzas musical group. Exhibit 17 presents the social 
mapping of the Pacific Cultural Corridor. 
Overall Location
Legend Convention
Exhibit 17. Social mapping of the Pacific Cultural Corridor
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION - GIS TEAM
PROCESS: In the municipality of Guapi, the CDLO activity was an essential component in recovering 
the region's cultural knowledge, which has been lost and forgotten with time. In this sense, the 
strengthening of cultural organizations, such as the group Semblanzas del Rio Guapi and the music 
school, allowed for the preservation of the musical legacy and its transmission to the municipality’s 
young people. It also allowed music to be seen as an economically profitable activity, which could
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 80
become a career for the municipality’s young people. Exhibit 18 shows how the different elements of the 
activity are integrated. 
Exhibit 18. Pacific Cultural Corridor CBO Strengthening Diagram
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
MUSICAL ACTIVITIES ARE CONSIDERED AS A PATH FOR TERRITORIAL PEACE BUILDING. 
One of the main concerns of the population of Guapi is the situation of the municipality’s young people. 
They have scarce job opportunities, few technical education opportunities, often migrate to Cali or 
Buenaventura, face the possibility of being victims of forced recruitment by armed actors, and can be 
involved in illicit economic activities such as coca-growing or illegal mining. The music industry can help 
provide licit economic alternatives for young people.
And I have always told them: boys, it is better to change a taco stick to make marimba music than to take a rifle 
to shoot someone else, it is better to hit a bass drum to make pacific music and not to hit a human being -Focus 
group. 
Very much so. First of all, if there is one of the issues or questions that lead children, at least in the conflict 
context, to get involved in this war, it is the lack of opportunities to spend their free time. Not having other things 
to do and not having opportunities, the children easily choose the path of evil. I say this because when we went to 
Limones, there were boys who were part of illegal groups, they did not see anything else, what they saw all day 
was guns and weapons, and weapons and boats moving, then: ah, no, that is the life we live, that is the route we
have to follow. With these community and musical processes, we get the children to finish their school day, and 
in the afternoons, they are busy making music, learning music, learning to dance, to devise their projects. -
Interview
81 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Exhibit 19: Photograph
SOURCE: SEMBLANZAS DEL RIO GUAPI FOUNDATION. CORPOGRAFIAS.COM
CDLO DEVELOPED A NEW BUSINESS UNIT FOCUSED ON EXPANDING THE CULTURAL 
KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTERVENTION AREA WITH A CREATIVE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. 
Based on the assessment conducted by CDLO, the need for a musical tour along the Pacific coast was
evident as they identified musical groups with little visibility. The strategic partner Discos Pacífico put on
a casting call where 40 groups from all over the Pacific coast were present. Three were selected: one 
from Tumaco, another from Guapi, and a third composed of people from all over the region living in 
Cali. 
There was a need for a comprehensive process that would allow the groups to learn about the creative and 
music industry, right? And at the same time, they could, well, not be at the same level, but their music could be 
heard in the same channels as that of a normal group, be it salsa, vallenato, solo or urban, right? A process 
begins, or an alternative process is born and financed by USAID and the CDLO program called Discos Pacifico. 
Discos Pacifico seeks to support three Pacific Colombian groups: Guapi, Timbiqui, Lopez, Tumaco, or groups of 
people who are in Cali or other cities but belong to the territory. There is a big call for about 40 groups or more 
participation. Three of the 40 groups were selected, and then within the 3, Semblanzas del Rio Guapi. -
Interview
THE MUSICAL PURPOSE OF SEMBLANZAS GOES BEYOND PRODUCING AN ALBUM. IT 
SEEKS TO CONNECT YOUNG PEOPLE WITH THEIR CULTURAL TRADITIONS. From the 
recovery of ancestral traditions based on singing and music, the young people of the municipality have 
been able to recognize themselves in their collective identity and build a possible career from cultural 
production. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 82
Exhibit 20: Photograph
SOURCE: SEMBLANZAS DEL RIO GUAPI FOUNDATION CORPOGRAFIAS.COM
We successfully trained these 50 students in Guapi, Timbiqii, and Tumaco since we have marimberos, both men 
and women. This is something that was being lost. Referring to the case of Guapi, in Guapi, there were no more 
marimberos, we trained and taught boys, and today there are already some here in Guapi and so on. In Ecos del 
Pacifico, we also trained the girls in South Pacific traditional songs. There are excellent singers and good 
interpreters of marimba, cununo, and bass drum. And we see that this was an excellent experience because, 
through CDLO, we had the opportunity to train these young people. And today they thank us and tell us that this 
is an opportunity they have today in life, to leave Guapi and show what they can do through culture. -Interview
Some of them did not practice music, but we knew that they had ancestry, they had relatives who in their time 
were good performers of cununo, of bombo, so we told them: -man, look, I knew your grandfather, your 
grandfather danced or sang, come, rescue that-. Or we watched a girl who supposedly said, ‘no, I don't know 
how to sing,’ and when we saw her, she was practically the best of them all, the best voice. But she had not 
brought out what she had there. -Interview 
STRENGTHENING THE SEMBLANZAS GROUP HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD THE 
ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITIES NECESSARY TO MAKE THE 
GROUP SUSTAINABLE OVER TIME. The assessment of the musical group and the youth music 
foundation identified many weaknesses in the organization. It did not have accounting or administrative 
processes, and the roles and responsibilities of its members were not clearly defined. CDLO sought to 
strengthen the organizational capacities to make the foundation and the group sustainable in the future.
Well, a part related to administration has also been done in training. There are two ways that we have 
contemplated or that we have talked about. The foundation, as the group is a foundation, has its administration 
team, its accountant, and its accounting assistant, who would administer these resources in one way or another. 
But the group has an assistant accountant and a logistics manager who are in charge of the whole issue, if we 
have to go to Europe, what we will spend, how we will spend it, all that. All that too. -Interview
83 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE GUAPI POPULATION ARE QUITE 
PRECARIOUS. THE INCOME OF A MUSICAL GROUP DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO ASSUME THE 
COSTS OF RECORDING AND PRODUCTION. The members of the Semblanzas group valued the 
support to produce the album and highlighted that they could not access a recording studio, such as the 
one at the ICESI University in Cali, because its costs were beyond their means. The participants stated
that the technical skills they learned in digital production have been fundamental for strengthening the 
group. 
We were recording for eight days. Let's say deep gratitude towards the CDLO, and I will. We had just won 
second place in Petronio, part of the resources to record. It was not enough, so we had to make raffles and sell 
tamales. We went by boat, asking a friend to let us stay in his house, right? So that it would be close to the 
studio, we could walk and think about lunch because we could not spend more than 30,000 pesos; otherwise, we 
would have a mess, and the next day we would have lunch. Until we got to this point where I tell these guys: 
look, this is a huge opportunity from God, this album costs around 40 million or more, with all the work it takes, 
the studio, the producers. -Interview
Exhibit 21: Photograph
SOURCE: FOUNDATION SEMBLANZAS DEL RIO GUAPI CORPOGRAFIAS.COM
THE DISINTEREST OF THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN INCORPORATING CULTURE AS A 
STRATEGIC AXIS OF TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT IS HIGHLIGHTED. The participants in the 
evaluation emphasized that for the intervention to be sustainable over time, it must have the local 
governments’ support. They pointed out that mayors do not see culture as a line of economic and social 
development. They stated that each mayor comes with development projects and plans, while 
interventions with young people are scarce. The CDLO intervention can be strengthened and replicated 
by the local governments.
I see a good future for young people, as long as the administrations of each municipality contribute a little bit into 
it, pay more attention to cultural issues. Because sometimes we stay at the level of ... in the case of here once I 
heard a politician say: ‘no, this youth is drinking too much’ and he was one of those who remove and put, then I 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 84
said to him: ‘what are you doing so that these children do not drink because you are the one who manages the 
culture, that is a mechanism that you have so that the children do not drink but put them to music and they go 
out.’ So, if the kids don't have that kind of support here, there is no future, but I know that if they put projects 
outside of Guapi, if they are supported outside, they have a future. Because the kids are studying now, but they 
need instruments, with the instruments they have made, they are from us. We lend them to them. But they need 
their instruments to build their marimbas and bass drums, so they begin to gain strength. -Interview 
THE CREATIVE ECONOMIES ARE BOOSTING THEIR DEVELOPMENT THROUGH 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESSES. The quarantines that resulted from the COVID-19 
pandemic significantly affected the musical groups. They could not perform concerts; the Petronio 
Alvarez festival, where they had had honorable participation, was canceled; and the rehearsal meetings 
were also suspended temporarily. The participants saw the training they received in using digital 
platforms as a viable economic outlet to monetize content, allowing them to access a digital market 
using information technologies. This marketing strategy was accelerated because of the COVID-19
pandemic. However, from the beginning of the intervention, it had been planned as a means of content 
commercialization and dissemination.
So, it is a golden opportunity. So beyond selling concerts, because now with the pandemic issue, we don't know 
when the whole issue of live shows will be enabled again, that is uncertain. But the guarantee of having the 
albums on the platforms and that they are moving and that the Program itself is advertising it so that more 
people, to generate curiosity in more people to listen, that is a direct opportunity for the group, because in the 
end, the money does not go to CDLO, the money does not stay in Discos Pacifico, the money comes to us. -
Interview 
Exhibit 22: Photograph
SOURCE: FOUNDATION SEMBLANZAS DEL RIO GUAPI CORPOGRAFIAS.COM
85 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE BEGUN TO REPLICATE EXPERIENCES AND PASS ON KNOWLEDGE 
TO THEIR COMMUNITIES. An essential contribution of the CDLO activity with the Semblanzas 
group is that the knowledge acquired in the production work is transmitted to the music foundation in
which young people from different parts of the municipality participate. The CDLO intervention seeks 
to strengthen the entire community, not just a particular musical group.
This knowledge that we acquire is not only for us, because at least for me, if another of the groups here calls me, 
but I will also tell them: well guys, what we did was a process like this, this way, profound, very strengthened and 
more or less so that you have a guideline, you can do it this way, this way. -Interview
With the guys from Semblanza, Ecos del Pacifico as well. The project we developed taught the children about 
instrument construction, repair, marimba playing, and traditional Pacific singing. It left me with a lesson and 
gratitude with CDLO that we, as builders... Because here there was a problem, that here people did not like to 
teach, and this entity taught us that knowledge must be transmitted, that youth must be taught because they are 
the seedbeds for tomorrow. So, we learned that we should not practice what we have been practicing here 
because culture has also had many problems of selfishness, and we have to leave that aside and move forward 
with the youth. -Focus Group
LESSONS LEARNED
• The experience with the musical group Semblanzas del Rio Guapi is an excellent example of technical 
capacity building in production and marketing based on prior community knowledge. 
• The subject of the case study focuses its intervention on capacity building. However, to preserve an 
intangible heritage, it shows elements of context analysis, multi-level dialogue, and communication for 
development.
• Although the beneficiaries value the CDLO activity, there is some concern about the sustainability of 
the process. In addition, the beneficiaries believe that the activity can increase its coverage by more 
actively involving the music schools of the region and that the activity could be replicated in other 
municipalities on the Colombian Pacific coast. The record had not been released at the time of the 
evaluation visit.
2. SAMANIEGO PRODUCERS' COOPERATIVE - CHUGULDI SAMANIEGO CORRIDOR
INTERVENTION CONTEXT: The CDLO intervention in the municipality of Samaniego began in 2018, 
prioritizing the corridor that connects the urban area with the village of Chuguldi and La Llanada. Based 
on the CDLO territorial assessment, the coffee chain is prioritized in the lower part of the municipality. 
According to the strengthening of the ABADES association, CDLO supported the construction of a 
collection center in the urban center and the creation of a coffee cupping school. The village of Chuguldi 
is in the upper part of the municipality, where CDLO supported the COOINPROSAM association
business strengthening, which is dedicated to producing potatoes, vegetables, and greens. In this area, 
there is a nucleus of intervention where the traditional economies are connected: the school's plant 
nursery where the farmers' children learn agricultural work, and the Rural Public Library for Peace 
where the community has access to digital production equipment donated by CDLO. The infrastructure 
projects and main culverts are concentrated on the road that connects the Chuguldi and La Llanada 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 86
villages with the urban center of Samaniego. The projects were carried out by the Community Action 
Board’s operating committee, and the municipality provided machinery for the road improvement. 
Overall Location
Legend Convention
Exhibit 23. Social mapping of the Chuguldi Samaniego Corridor
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION - GIS TEAM
PROCESS: COOINPROSAM's value capture process connects traditional economies, such as potatoes 
and vegetables, with non-traditional economies, such as digital production and web design. The 
relationship is established by linking the village’s productive activities with the educational infrastructure 
(based on the Municipal Libraries for Peace program of the National Library) located in the Chuguldi 
village school. The village's young people, most of whom are children of the association's producers, 
receive training in web design, systems management, and communication strategies. The young people in 
the library's innovative projects program were in charge of developing the COOINPROSAM and 
ABADES web pages, from which the two Community Based Organizations can sell their products, learn 
about the state of their finances, and communicate internally. Together with the Community Action 
Board of the village, the activity is developing a virtual tour of an ecological reserve area to be promoted 
as a tourist destination in the future. The value capture model has several limitations: Internet 
connection is lacking in almost all rural areas of the municipality. The equipment donated by CDLO is 
located in the library of the school and, due to quarantine closures, young people could not access the 
equipment (at the time of the evaluation visit, the quarantines had ended). The sustainability of the 
87 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
intervention may be affected by the local government's political will. In this case, the intervention has 
had the support of the Secretary of Education of Samaniego, but in future governments priorities may 
change. Finally, the timing of CDLO is different from the timing of the National Government. The 
equipment donated by CDLO arrived before the evaluation visit, while the equipment of the National 
Library had not arrived at the time of the visit. 
Exhibit 24. Chuguldi Samaniego Corridor, Cooinprosam- Municipal Library for Peace, Strengthening process
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
STRENGTHENING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY ALLOWED 
THE FORMALIZATION OF PROCESSES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY CARRIED OUT 
INFORMALLY (ORGANIZATIONAL STRENGTHENING). An immediate intervention that CDLO 
conducted with the associations was strengthening business processes through training and support for 
financial, accounting, and administrative issues. Processes that were previously carried out intuitively and 
traditionally were then standardized. The evaluation participants emphasized that the association 
redrafted the bylaws in a participatory process in which all members were involved. Despite having been 
in operation for more than ten years, the productive associations had basic flaws in accounting and 
administrative processes. The participants valued the intervention in strengthening these processes, 
making them more efficient by leaving behind informal organizational practices. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 88
From my point of view, it is the support 
provided in the administrative and 
financial area. We had an enormous 
difficulty because we had not been able 
to update the accounting process in ten 
years of operation. So, this was a huge 
shortcoming that we had, with all the 
problems with not having an up-to-date 
financial situation, which is basic for 
decision making. So, thanks to the 
process, now, at the end of the process, 
we have managed to standardize all 
the financial part, update it to the 
national and international system 
through the IFRS, parameterize it and, 
additionally, keep it up to date. Today, 
for example, at 6:00 p.m. every day, 
we know exactly how the cooperative is 
doing in the financial-accounting area, 
and at the end of each month, the 
team meets with all the professionals to 
determine the shortcomings of each of 
the processes. So, this has been the 
greatest gain we have today. -Focus 
group
Exhibit 25: Cooinprosam organic products store
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTIFIED SEEDS INVOLVES MULTI-LEVEL DIALOGUE BETWEEN 
THE ASSOCIATION, UNIVERSITIES, AND RESEARCH CENTERS. CDLO's support of
COOINPROSAM producing certified seeds has been fundamental for its expansion and sustainability in 
the future. The support of CDLO and connections with institutions, such as the Nariño Rural 
Development Agency and universities in the region, allowed this certified seed initiative to provide 
sustainability to the intervention when the program ended. There are currently two companies 
commercializing seeds in Nariño, and the association COOINPROSAM would be the third.
89 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
We could say, today, that it was a 
before and after the process. We 
are very happy to say that we are 
today in an after, after two years, 
more or less since this whole 
process began. Within the 
association, a very substantial 
change is noticeable in what was 
before and today with the program's 
implementation. Within the 
cooperative, we have the Certified 
Seed program. Today, we already 
have the endorsement and the 
necessary permits required here in 
Colombia that are processed before 
the ICA; this has been a significant 
achievement since we have always 
bought seeds outside the 
municipality and many times, 
outside the department, with all the 
costs and other situations that this 
implies. -Interview
Exhibit 26: Seedbeds in the village of Chuguldi
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
The development of certified potato seeds strengthened traditional economies through new products 
that generate added value. The process involved multi-level dialogue with academia, the Universidad de 
Nariño, and research centers such as Agrosavia during laboratory tests. The Colombian Agricultural 
Institute (ICA, by its acronym in Spanish) was also involved in the seed certification process.
Agrosavia was directly involved in this process because they had been working with us. They provided us with the 
logistics, they provided us with some materials, and Agrosavia was involved in the whole process because this was 
a process, even before the implementation of this part. So, all the logistics and technical support from there was 
offered to the engineer hired by the program to start this process. So, the work of Agrosavia, for example, was 
vital in this situation and that of the ICA [Colombian Agricultural Institute]. The ICA is the other entity that also 
joined… -Interview 
THE INTERVENTION IN ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE MADE IT POSSIBLE TO STRENGTHEN 
THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF ASSOCIATIONS. Such is the case of COOINPROSAM and 
ABADES in Samaniego, where road infrastructure projects were implemented on the roads leading to 
the collection center, the production farms, and the library. The infrastructure intervention sought to 
strengthen the commercialization of the associations related to CDLO activity.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 90
The infrastructure works 
were mainly to facilitate the 
commercialization of 
COOINPROSAM, no, 
because there, how they get 
their vegetables and greens, 
when they took their 
produce before, as the 
roads were so damaged, 
the crops arrived here half 
damaged. So, we said, 
come on, we held a 
meeting with 
COOINPROSAM members 
and the community in 
general. -Interview 
Exhibit 27: Road improvement works in the village of Chuguldi
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
COLLABORATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ON ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE WAS 
POSSIBLE THROUGH MAINTENANCE WORK IN THE CORRIDORS WHERE CDLO 
INTERVENED. Local governments do not have the budget for infrastructure projects; however, they 
collaborated as much as possible by providing their machinery. In the case of Samaniego, they
coordinated with the mayor's office on the road improvement (yellow machinery) for the areas of the 
road infrastructure where CDLO intervened.
The program provided the sewers. The mayor's office helped with road improvement, let's say, with machinery. 
And they also repaired... A large part of the road. So, that was the commitment we had had, from the beginning, 
with the mayor. Because, in the beginning, the program had been committed to the sewers, but the mayor's 
office, with the issue of repairing with machinery, scraping and placing the gravel ...that is being done today. -
Focus group 
THE PROVISION OF TECHNOLOGY FOR RURAL LIBRARIES HAS ALLOWED YOUNG 
PEOPLE TO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY AND CONTINUE THEIR DIGITAL PRODUCTION 
PROCESS, DESPITE THE MOBILITY RESTRICTIONS DUE TO THE COVID-19 EMERGENCY.
CDLO invested in technological equipment consisting of computers, tablets, and digital cameras to 
strengthen the Public Library for Peace. Such equipment allowed young people to continue their digital 
production work despite mobility restrictions due to quarantines generated by COVID-19. 
91 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
27 tablets, yes... well, these tablets arrived 
last year. Because of pandemic situations, 
children had to stay at home. Unfortunately, 
children do not have the same opportunities 
as other students to have their Internet, 
computer, or tablet at home to do their 
homework. So, these tablets were 
something very good, it was something 
incredible and also a gift that allowed us to 
motivate the students even more because 
these 27 tablets were distributed to the 
students who actively participated in the 
library's base groups and were given to 
them as a loan last year so that they could 
carry out their academic activities and also, 
through these tablets, they could also 
participate in the different pieces of training 
that were given from CDLO. -Interview
Exhibit 28: Municipal Library for Peace, Chuguldi village
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
THE DIGITAL PRODUCTION COMPONENT IS COORDINATED WITH THE PRODUCERS' 
ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH HAVE STRENGTHENED THEIR MARKETING AND INTERNAL 
COMMUNICATION PROCESSES. Training in digital production has enabled the associations 
(ABADES) to have a well-structured web page where members can consult all the information related 
to production, commercialization, and financial statements. 
Honestly, we can now manage the website so that you understand me. They have already trained us in 
everything, and it is already installed in Federación Abades, where you enter and see like Abades and look at the 
associations, everything is complete. In other words, something very nice. Something that you... Another person 
can look at, can look at everything, as I said, all the work, all that. Only Abades can look at the financial parts, all 
those things. In other words, only Abades can enter that page. -Samaniego focus group.
LESSONS LEARNED
• Producers and academic collaboration: Adequate coordination between universities, research 
centers, and producer associations allowed the creation of new products, in this case certified seeds.
• Coordination of traditional and non-traditional economy: Training in digital production, web design, 
and systems management strengthened producer associations in accounting, administration, and 
marketing. 
• Government collaboration: The intervention in the Rural Public Library for Peace shows that it is 
possible to collaborate between CBOs (Cooinprosam), the local government, including the school 
and library, the National Library with bibliographic supplies, and CDLO with technological equipment.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 92
3. ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF COCOA FARMERS IN THE MUNICIPALITY 
OF SAN JOSE DE FRAGUA (ASOACASAN).
INTERVENTION CONTEXT: CDLO began its intervention in the municipality of San Jose de Fragua in 
2018, where diverse activities are prioritized in the same geographic corridor. CDLO concentrates its 
activities in the Pie de Monte San Jose corridor, covering the eastern slope of the municipality on the 
mountain range on the border with the Fragua Indiwasy National Park. CDLO has developed three 
primary centers in the corridor. The first center is the northern part, including the urban center, where 
they have developed road infrastructure projects in the Bellavista, La Paz, and La Tigra villages. This 
sector is home to the municipality's most significant cocoa production. Tourism and gastronomy 
projects have also been developed near the Natural Park. The second center is in the southwestern part 
of the municipality and includes El Jardin, El Palmar, and Los Andes trails. The intervention includes 
infrastructure projects that connect the producers in the upper piedmont with the main road, as well as 
tourism and gastronomy in Berlin town. Finally, a third center connects the two previous ones in the 
Costa Rica trail, where the fruit tree collection center is located. The ASOACASAN headquarters is 
located in the urban center of the municipality, where the post-harvest cocoa process is concentrated.
Overall Location
Legend Convention
Exhibit 29. Social mapping of the Pie de Monte San Jose Corridor.
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION - GIS TEAM
93 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
San Jose del Fragua and Caquetá were the epicenter of the armed conflict with the Revolutionary 
Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC, by its acronym in 
Spanish) for decades. Since the Peace Agreement, there has been a relative improvement in security 
conditions; however, new armed actors have arrived in the region to take control of coca crops. As 
seen on the map, the entire municipality has been affected by illicit crops, which are more concentrated 
in the foothills and the area near the natural park. In such a difficult environment, different producers' 
associations have emerged that seek to create licit productive alternatives for the region's farmers. 
I lived through the hard times in Caquetá, I know them, the difficult times, the times of drug trafficking, the times 
of violence, the times of forced disappearances, from the 80s to the 90s, and I lived through all that; but I am 
also aware and let's put it this way, I am proud of the resilience we have here in Caquetá. It is not easy, culturally 
it is not easy, the people are very, very affected, but there are very good expectations and very good activities 
have been developed, let's put it this way, that have been framed to help change lives, but because those 
communities or those people have allowed it. We are simply helping to push the wheel, but they are the ones 
who continue. -Interview
The Peace Agreement and the demobilization of the FARC brought profound changes to the southern 
region of Caquetá. The main one, according to the participants of the evaluation, is in regards to 
security. They trust that this improvement will continue and that the Government will fulfill its 
commitments in implementing the Agreements. The Development Plans with a Territorial Approach 
(PDETs, by its acronym in Spanish) have already been formulated, but their implementation has been 
slow and with a low budget. The Integral National Plan for Crop Substitution (PNIS, by its acronym in 
Spanish) received profound objections from the community regarding non-compliance of productive 
projects.
I am one of those who say that the peace agreement was very important, it began to change the imaginary and 
the security conditions, they were modified, and that is a before and after. -Focus group 
A beneficiary of the CDLO activity comments on how the Peace Process made it possible for 
institutions to arrive in the region of San Jose de Fragua:
The peace process was very important, it has been very important for the department because, without the 
peace process, the State presence did not reach San Jose. We were isolated and dependent on an armed group 
that came and set the conditions here, and we had to stand idly by because if we said anything against it, they 
would kill us or take us out of our land, and we didn't want to lose what we had. -Focus group 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 94
Exhibit 30: Fragua River Canyon, San Jose de Fragua
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
PROCESS: The Association of Cocoa Producers of San Jose del Fragua (ASOACASAN) arose in a 
rather complex context, marked by the boom in illicit crops, the armed conflict, and the abandonment 
of the region by the State. In 2008, the association was formalized as a legal alternative for the farmers 
of San Jose de Fragua.
Asoacasan is a cocoa association registered and has had all its legal accounts since 2008, because of all the 
fumigations that were being done, they were damaging crops, the illegal ones, and other crops; then they saw an 
alternative, which was cocoa, right? Everybody used to say cocoa, like -you plant it and after three years, four 
years and that's it, go and cut the seed, and that's it, you have no problems at all. That's how it was done; it was 
planted, the whole process was done, and it turns out that this is not, this demands a lot of work, too much work.
-Interview 
In 2017, the association was in a deep crisis. Many people had abandoned the association, they were not 
receiving technical assistance from the mayor's office, and many producers had neglected the 
maintenance of the trees or, in other cases, had abandoned them as they believed that it was not 
profitable for the work required. 
There was no support at any time, from any entity. It was thought to liquidate this association, some people 
wanted to, but a lot of cocoa was abandoned. They abandoned it at the beginning because it generated a lot of 
production costs, they thought it was not profitable because cocoa here was paid up to 2,200 pesos, so it was 
better to leave it to waste. And that happened here in the association. Everyone left it abandoned. Besides, some 
turned it into pasture; others turned it into whatever but abandoned. -Interview
THE PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT BY CDLO IDENTIFIED THE SPECIFIC 
NEEDS OF THE ASSOCIATION. In this context, CDLO arrived in the municipality of San Jose de 
Fragua to support ASOACASAN at a critical moment: low cocoa quality and productivity, producers 
disappointed with the crop, and an aging farmer population with no generational replacement in sight.
Then CDLO arrived and boosted the cocoa trade here. How did that happen? That was because there was a 
broker here, that intermediary paid whatever he wanted here in San Jose, so the price of cocoa was meager. 
When we started buying cocoa in 2019, we already had a processing plant, CDLO helped us build a warehouse 
and a drying shed, so we said we had to put the drying shed to work. -Interview
95 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
One of the main difficulties faced by cocoa producers is to achieve a homogeneous bean quality, as each 
producer carries out fermentation and drying on his individual farm. Centralizing the post-harvest 
process has been a solution to this weakness in their marketing processes. CDLO and the association 
determined that a critical point in which to intervene was the entire post-harvest process to improve 
the quality of the beans, have standard fermentation and drying processes for all members, and thus 
open new markets for specialty cocoa.
THE PROCESSING CENTER GENERATED A CHANGE IN THE PRODUCERS’ POST-HARVEST 
PRACTICES. Previously, each producer carried out the fermentation and drying process on their farm, 
which resulted in different grain qualities. The processing center made it possible to centralize the 
process, receive the cocoa "in baba" (mucilage-coated cocoa), carry out the entire processing under the 
same conditions, and obtain standard quality cocoa. 
(Detail removed) post-harvest cocoa for the ASOACASAN Association. We have been working on purchasing 
cocoa at the mill; thank God we started through CDLO to carry out this purchase and post-harvest process: 
fermentation, drying, and, later, packaging. -Focus group
Exhibit 31: Processing center, drying parabolics, and bean selection.
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
CDLO SUCCEEDED IN INVOLVING YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COCOA PRODUCTION 
PROCESS THROUGH TRAINING PROCESSES. To improve post-harvest processes, the program 
conducted internships for young people belonging to the organization in other departments, where they 
could learn good agricultural practices in cocoa growing and then replicate this knowledge with the 
association's members.
We went to Arauca, a major cocoa producer department that is light years ahead of us. So, there they had cocoa 
tourism routes, routes of this and that, in other words, they integrated things a lot. So, we went and trained 
ourselves. -Interview
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 96
A CENTRAL ASPECT OF ASOACASAN'S PROCESS HAS BEEN THE GENERATIONAL 
TRANSITION OF PRODUCERS. In the municipality, many young people have migrated from the 
countryside to the cities for different reasons, at one time because of threats from armed groups or to 
avoid being recruited. Other young people have gone to study in cities such as Florencia, Neiva, or 
Bogota, as far as their parents' income allows, but they study subjects that are not related to agriculture 
and later settle in the cities. There is a lack of technical education offered by SENA or the Universidad 
de la Amazonia in Florencia. 
We are also working on the social part, such as generational transition. We started this process the year before, 
looking for young people to return to the countryside and fall in love with agriculture again because I am one of 
those convinced that... I have always said that the country is getting old, but it is not because of the countryside, 
but because when you visit the farm, you find the father, mother and children far from the farm, studying in the 
city or because they have moved to other places because of lack of opportunities. -Focus group 
Exhibit 32: Cacao fermentation box
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
SOME YOUNG PEOPLE, SPECIFICALLY CHILDREN OF FARMERS, HAVE BEGUN THE 
PROCESS OF BECOMING COCOA PRODUCERS. Some have received training in good agricultural 
practices in other departments, such as Arauca, which are more advanced in cocoa production. This is 
the case of the cocoa producer’s son below: 
When I arrived from there [Arauca], my dad told me that he no longer wanted to continue with cocoa, that it 
was too much work. I told him, 'Well, let me plant it,' and he said no, I don't know... Okay, no problem, and I left. 
Suddenly he called me: “Do you want to plant it?”, “yes." I went and bought the seedlings from Florencia, already 
grafted and everything. Very nice like that. One day I told him, “Well, how do you plant it?” Because I didn't 
know how to plant it. I knew that you fix it and prune it, and that's it, but I didn't know how to plant. He taught 
me, helped me plant it, and said, "well, it's ok, let's do it as partners." And I said, "well, let's do it" (laughs). 
(laughs) I already have some big bushes; they have been there for two years. In other words, it is still small for 
the time it has taken, but I am happy with my cocoa plantation. - Interview
COCOA CROP HAS ALLOWED THE FARMERS TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE TO ILLICIT 
CROPS, not only because of economic factors but also because it generates roots, security, and identity 
in the producers. The evaluation participants state that cocoa growing is a legal activity which has 
97 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
allowed them to have peace and tranquility since they have no contact with illegal groups, and they have 
also managed to recover their sense of self-worth by recognizing themselves as farmers.
The same phenomenon of illicit crops that was very strong here in the department allowed many families to 
disintegrate. Sometimes when we talk with our associates or with other neighboring farmers, we say 'how nice it 
is to sit at the table, enjoy a good cup of chocolate, to be able to whisper, with the security that we can be here 
without anyone coming to bother us. Without the fear that an armed group might arrive, that they might come 
and threaten us, but with the certainty that what we produce on the farm we will be able to take to the town, to 
commerce, in broad daylight, without hiding. So, this is the peace and tranquility of having a cocoa crop. - Focus 
group 
Another testimony in the same sense highlights the insecurity that the producers are exposed to 
through illicit crops: 
The significant difference here is that cocoa at this moment is a product you can take from the farm and if it 
falls on your neighbor´s land or your friend, he helps pick it up. The big difference with coca, which is more 
profitable, is that if they look at you with a kilo of coca, they kill you. - Focus group 
The focus group participants say that the money obtained from illicit crops is ill-gotten, while cocoa, 
even if it is less money, allows them to feel proud of their work and to recover a sense of self-worth. 
You may have money, but it is money that you do not spend peacefully, and you will not enjoy it as you enjoy 
when you take out a bag of cocoa and sell it. You take it to the village, and you can stand in the middle of the 
square and say, “look, here I have cocoa to sell and enjoy,” and say, “the money I have here is from cocoa,” and 
no one will say anything to you. And sharing this achievement with the family is the most beautiful thing. I think 
that, from our point of view, we have to start building so we can change. - Focus group 
SECURITY CONDITIONS CONCERN LOCAL PRODUCERS WHO HAVE BEEN BETTING ON 
THE FORMAL ECONOMY. In some cases, armed groups and promoters of illicit crops see cocoa 
producers as a threat to their "business." They say that cocoa leaders in the region have been 
threatened, so they try to keep a low profile as to not generate conflicts with the armed groups in the 
region.
Sometimes we have to speak with caution on this issue because there are actors in the region who do not like 
the fact that we support the legal economy and think that "well, if you are getting me involved in this, you are 
brainwashing the people I have involved there and you can damage my business," and sometimes this can even 
cost the life of a leader; but little by little we want and need to because it is important. - Focus group 
THE CONSTRUCTION OF PRODUCTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS ALLOWED ASOACASAN 
TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE COCOA IT COMMERCIALIZES. CDLO built productive 
infrastructure to strengthen ASOACASAN, such as a processing center to centralize the post-harvest 
process of cocoa and thus have a better quality of the grain, which allows better prices from the trading 
partner and avoids intermediaries buying directly from producers.
This processing plant allowed us to obtain homogeneous cocoa, with the same physical and chemical 
characteristics, which allowed us to sell it at a better price. So, we were already buying from the farmer, knowing 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 98
that the intermediary was paying 4,800, we were buying it at 5,600. Of course, then the associate and the non￾associated brought the cocoa here, but we have a problem; that we still don't have enough resources. -Interview
THANKS TO THE PROCESSING CENTER, THE CENTRALIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION 
OF THE POST-HARVEST PROCESS WERE ACHIEVED. This is related to uniform fermentation, 
drying under optimal conditions, and packaging. The result was an improvement in the quality of the 
cocoa in a short time, which was evidenced in a contest on bean quality where the association was a 
finalist. 
With the support we have received from CDLO, we have already won a contest here in Caqueta, the contest for 
the best quality cocoa in Caqueta. We participated in other contests at the national level, some international 
business rounds were held, and we were, that is, about five associations in Colombia were chosen for a business 
roundtable with international traders. We were part of those five because of cocoa quality. -Focus group 
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE POST-HARVEST PROCESS, THE QUALITY OF THE BEAN, AND 
HAVING A TRADING PARTNER ALLOWED THE ASSOCIATION TO BUY THE BEANS FROM 
THE PRODUCERS AT A HIGHER PRICE THAN THE TRADITIONAL INTERMEDIARIES. CDLO 
allowed ASOACASAN to create a relationship with the business partner Chuculat, which allowed them 
to obtain a better price for the grain and avoid intermediaries, with the condition of improving quality. 
The improvement in the fermentation and drying of the grain allowed the association to have a standard 
quality, which led to a commercial strengthening of the association. 
In addition to that, we managed to agree with them, where they pay us per kilo of well-processed cocoa with 
specific conditions: 30% above the local price. From there, we began to produce quality and put an end to the 
intermediary. When we got our kilo of cocoa here, they paid us 4,800 pesos; the year after the association was 
formed, we entered and built this infrastructure and committed ourselves to the whole process -I believed it was 
possible, but I saw it as very difficult- but it was a challenge that we took on together with the board of directors 
and each of the associates. -Interview
Exhibit 33. Chocolate produced by Chuculat, ASOACASAN's business partner.
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
99 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ALTHOUGH THE ASSOCIATION HAS IMPROVED THE QUALITY OF THE BEAN, IT HAS NOT 
REACHED THE VOLUMES NEEDED TO MEET THE DEMAND OF LARGER-SCALE BUYERS.
They hope to increase production in the coming years, although they recognize that it is not an easy 
process. The process requires expanding the plantations and new producers to join the association, 
which brings doubts about ASOACASAN's sustainability in the medium and long term.
We have problems with sales because we do not have that... we have some two that buy from us, but tiny 
quantities... 300 kilos, sometimes 500; then sometimes we have to wait for them to gather 1,000 tons to be able 
to send or to be able to pay. So, there is always a bottleneck with the sustainability of the association. In the 
beginning, we established it to be sustainable in 3 years. It has been two years, and we are on the right track, but 
we still have a long way to go. -Interview
CURRENTLY, ONE OF THE ASSOCIATION'S MAIN PROJECTS IS TO CREATE A BRAND 
WITH ITS OWN IDENTITY. The evaluation participants believe it is essential for the final consumer 
to recognize that the cocoa grown in San Jose del Fragua is part of a community initiative to build peace 
and legality in the territory, which is an added value that business partners should consider. In the same 
direction, they plan to develop a "cocoa route" as a tourist attraction, where visitors can learn about the 
different varieties of cocoa, the territory, its people, and the efforts they make to have a legal career. 
We also want a seal that identifies the association, not so much as a certificate, but a seal that gives us the 
identity of what ASOACASAN means. For example, Harvests in Peace, post-conflict cocoa, or something like that.
-Interview
LESSONS LEARNED
• The CDLO activity has shown that improving production processes through productive 
infrastructure projects is possible. In this case, the processing center was where the fermentation, 
drying, grain selection, and packaging processes were concentrated. The milling center has allowed a 
standard quality that permits obtaining a better price for the grain.
• Centralizing the post-harvest process has made it possible to achieve a standard quality for the 
different members of the CBO. The process of fermentation and drying of cocoa beans centralized in 
the CBO has improved quality and allowed access to new markets. ASOACASAN's experience 
shows that it is possible to change the practices of traditional producers and strengthen producer 
associations.
• The internship program, where young people travel to different regions to learn good agricultural 
practices in cocoa, has allowed them to become involved and take an active role in the CBO. The 
knowledge they acquire is replicated with the different producers, giving an important place and role 
to the young children of associates, making the generational transition possible. 
• The case of ASOACASAN demonstrates that cocoa growing is a viable alternative for substituting 
illicit crops. The participants of the evaluation highlight aspects beyond the economic sphere, such as 
the security and solidarity generated among neighbors, the pride in growing a product that is good 
for people, the possibility of developing roots from a long-term project, and recovering their sense of 
self-worth by having an identity related to legality and peacebuilding. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 100
4. COCOA PRODUCERS’ ASSOCIATION - ASOPROCAF VALLE DEL GUAMUEZ
INTERVENTION CONTEXT: In the La Hormiga corridor, in Valle del Guamuez, CDLO concentrated 
its intervention in the southern zone in La Florida village. As seen in the social mapping (Exhibit 6), a 
concentration of activities reinforces a legal economy nucleus amid an illicit crops’ context. CDLO joins 
traditional economic activities, such as the improvement of cocoa production and post-harvest (green 
dots), which refer to non-traditional economies related to ecotourism (magenta dots), as well as 
productive infrastructure works in the processing center and laboratory of ASPROCAF (yellow dots). 
The map also shows the work of the communications collective, focused on mural painting, 
concentrated in the urban centers of La Hormiga, El Tigre, and El Placer (magenta dots).
Overall Location
Legend Convention
Exhibit 34. Social mapping of the La Hormiga Corridor
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION - GIS TEAM
PROCESS: The CDLO activity in La Hormiga corridor of Valle del Guamuez is based on its context 
reading, as well as the need to conserve the region's ecological diversity and take advantage of its 
ecotourism potential. The CDLO activity is concentrated in the village of La Florida, where the cocoa 
CBO producer ASOPROCAF is located. CDLO initially supported the CBO in the construction of the 
processing center, but seeing the ecological richness of the area, it was decided to implement a non￾traditional economic project called "the cocoa route," taking advantage of a reserved space established 
by the JAC in 2015. In the ecotourism project, the youth and women of the village actively participated 
101 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
in activities such as the design of ecotourism tours, bird and primate watching, cocoa production, and 
cupping. It is worth noting that several young children of producers completed internships in different 
regions of Colombia and abroad on cocoa production, post-harvest, and quality, and upon their return, 
they applied and disseminated the knowledge they had acquired. The cocoa route is just beginning to 
operate, but the strategic partner believes it should be integrated into a broader tourism circuit with 
other ecotourism routes in Putumayo. 
Exhibit 35. Relationship between the activity elements in the La Florida village, Valle del Guamuez.
SOURCE: CDLO EVALUATION
THE TOURISM ACTIVITY OF THE COCOA ROUTE IMPLIES A VALUE CAPTURE OF AN 
ECOLOGICAL AREA AT RISK. A young woman from the village of La Florida told the evaluation team
that CDLO conducted the assessment with the La Florida Community Action Board and ASOPROCAF
and found that the vereda has essential environmental resources. In 2015, the Community Action Board 
established a "reserve area" to conserve the entire riverbank and protect its fauna. After working with 
the strategic partners in tourism, Travolution and Quinti, the inhabitants recognized the economic 
potential of bird and primate watching tourism.
I, for example, said, "But there is nothing attractive here,” I said, "But something that is like a mural or 
something" "Here it is only a jungle," I said, "It is a mountain. It's just cocoa", which for us is of no importance. 
For example, seeing a monkey or a bird every day, primates, and bird watching was normal. The sunsets were 
beautiful to them. So, they said, "You have a great potential." But I said, "Here it is a mountain"; then, 
Travolution and Quinti said, "No, you have a lot of potentials, a lot, a lot," they said, "Here, keep working, keep 
working, keep working, show. Show where the cocoa is planted, from the cocoa seed to where it is transformed, 
up to the transformation of the chocolate. There is a lot of potentials. Bird watching, primate watching and all 
that. -Focus group 
CDLO SUPPORTED ASOPROCAF WITH RESOURCES FOR THE COCOA LABORATORY 
CONSTRUCTION. The association has a project to standardize the cocoa post-harvest process, from 
pulping, fermentation, and bean drying; with other cooperation projects, they have acquired machinery 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 102
that allows them to process the cocoa to produce chocolates. CDLO contributed resources for the 
collection and processing center construction, which will be part of the cocoa route. The collection 
center and laboratory are currently under construction and are expected to be completed in December 
2021. The community action board of La Florida has been trained to follow up on oversight, accounting, 
and purchasing work.
We had another project for some machines with another entity, with SIX, so we needed a laboratory. Then, they 
told us that they asked what we needed for the cocoa project; CDLO came to help us build the laboratory. The 
other entity already gave us the machines, but there was no place to receive them, so we had to rent to receive 
them. So, we already have them there. And now, well, they have already started with the laboratory and 
construction, but we thought we would start this year. -Focus Group
THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE WOMEN CBO HAS BEEN FUNDAMENTAL FOR THE 
STRENGTHENING OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE COCOA ROUTE CREATION. The 
women's group of the La Florida village was created from previous programs, such as Women 
Entrepreneurs of the Department of Social Prosperity. CDLO seeks to empower the women through 
the ecotourism project. In this project, an eco-kitchen is built and will serve as a restaurant where ten 
women who are trained in gastronomy and supported by SENA will work. Another group of women 
received training in cocoa cupping, playing an active role in creating the cocoa route and the processing 
laboratory construction.
THE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM INVOLVED THE YOUNG CHILDREN OF PRODUCERS IN THE 
COCOA PRODUCTION PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDED POST-HARVEST AND COCOA 
CUPPING. The internship program enabled young people to become actively involved in the 
association and serve as a bridge for knowledge transfer. The young people spent a month visiting 
different chocolate companies in Spain and Mexico to learn about cupping and chocolate production and 
visiting farms in Antioquia, Arauca, and Santander to learn about good cocoa fermentation and drying 
practices.
INTERVIEWEE: Yes, it depends on the company, each specializes in that. My partner (detail removed), who 
went to Arauquita, also specialized in post-harvest and transformation. Collect the cobs, harvest, clear, 
fermentation, and dry, then pass them on to processing. My colleague (detail removed) went to Antioquia, 
Medellin, she was focused on machinery; that is, how much time in a machine, how much, that it is not going 
to be too much in the roasting, that it is not going to burn, and so on. She learned to operate a toaster, a 
dehuller, and a refiner... and I focused on quality.
INTERVIEWER: Well, how long did it last...? And how long did these internships last? Interesting, I think...
INTERVIEWEE: I was in Mexico for a month. All for free. -Focus group Valle del Guamuez. 
But the idea is to continue, we want to make... But we also make chocolates; although what we do is to 
harvest the cobs, harvest, cacao clearing, ferment, get a good drying process, and send it, for the moment, to 
Santander so that they can make the chocolates for us, because of the machinery. But we do have the 
machines. We were waiting for the laboratory construction, which they are building now; then, after the 
laboratory is built, we could make chocolate bars and transform. -Interview
103 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
THE COCOA ECOTOURISM ROUTE HAS ALLOWED PEOPLE TO GENERATE ROOTS IN THE 
TERRITORY. The tourism economy was unknown to the inhabitants of La Florida village. The 
construction of the cocoa route allowed them to recognize their territory again from its ecological and 
fauna diversity. The training they received from Quinti, the strategic partner, in bird and primate 
watching allowed them to rediscover their territory and generate roots.
The activity that is currently being developed is ecotourism, which is made up of young people and women of our 
village where we intend to offer the cocoa route with our young technicians as guides, cocoa cupping with our 
young people of the sensory component, heritage and peace hiking, which is the tour to the macro ceibo tree 
that is about a century old, bird watching as is the phornis chalibeos, La Coqueta, which is a tiny hummingbird; 
and in primates, [unknown word] discolor. We also have a gastronomy component and a component of women 
entrepreneurs dedicated to chocolate transformation. -Focus group 
Exhibit 36: Cocoa route: Cocoa cupping.
SOURCE: MEL FIELDWORK
THE ECOTOURISM PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE A CLEAR ROUTE TO 
COMMERCIALIZATION. The strategic partner seeks to integrate the cocoa route into the Putumayo 
tourism network, offering packages in combination with other destinations such as Orito and Mocoa. 
The cacao route has been able to build tours on the crops and the ecotourism trail; however, the 
laboratory has not yet been completed, so the tour route was not in operation at the moment of the 
evaluation visit.
How do they plan the marketing process of this beautiful place? (...) Well, the idea is that they say that we 
should look for an operator, either one of those that already exist in the department, then, to start moving, to 
look for someone who can advertise or look for clients. So, they say that we are waiting for this, whether we are 
looking for an operator or we start moving through the network. -Interview
Creating collaborative networks of tourism services can improve the project's sustainability. 
Because they say that it would be good to create a network with Puerto Asis, with Villagarzon and work this way 
so that our visitors would have the opportunity to make several tours, not only to visit Valle del Guamuez or only 
Puerto Asis so that it could be like a network (...) Yes. And in all the organizations, we show something different, 
that is, in this network that could be created, we are the only ones that show the whole cocoa process. So, all of 
them reveal something different, they offer other products; so, with them, we have decided to form a tourism 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 104
network at the departmental level, because we have already had conversations with the mayor's office, we are 
also going to create a network, but at the local level. -Interview 
ECOTOURISM AND COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES WERE NOT CONSTRUCTED IN LA 
HORMIGA CORRIDOR. In the municipality of Valle del Guamuez, the program implemented a 
communications strategy called "Awaken Your Spirit," which sought to recover the identity and sense of 
the value of Putumayo inhabitants. A mural was created in the urban centers of La Hormiga, El Tigre, 
and El Placer (see social mapping). Videos were also made of places with potential ecotourism, such as 
the Rio de las Garzas, which are available on digital platforms and seek to change the territory's image. 
The cacao ecotourism route was not in operation when the communications strategy was developed. 
The program could take advantage of the communications collective installed capacity to promote the 
cacao route.
Exhibit 37: Awaken your Spirit mural campaign, La Hormiga.
SOURCE: MEL FIELD VISIT
LESSONS LEARNED
• The connection between traditional and non-traditional economies generates a value capture 
mechanism. The cocoa route ecotourism project has created a value capture process that links 
ecological protection and restoration aspects, new income sources from ecotourism, recognition and 
conservation of the municipality's fauna (bird and primate watching), and a tour of the entire cocoa 
production chain as a cultural and tourist attraction. It is worth noting that the program has 
generated roots and new identity sources in a region stigmatized by the armed conflict and illicit 
crops.
• The involvement of young people has strengthened producers' associations and facilitated the 
generational transition. The cocoa production, post-harvest internship program, and marketing 
promote the active participation of young people from the village in the producers' association, 
achieving recognition and generating knowledge transfer from other regions. Young people training in 
ecotourism projects open new job opportunities, promoting conservation and ecological restoration 
of the territory.
105 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5. SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES: FISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN MONTELIBANO AND 
DEVELOPMENT OF FISH FARMS IN THE PUERTO LIBERTADOR REGION. 
RATIONALE FOR ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH FISH FARMING AND AQUACULTURE. 
CDLO has promoted activities in the fish farming and aquaculture value chain because there are 
essential water resources in the Córdoba Department, specifically the farmers' vocation and experience 
in this value chain. There is also a particular organizational strength in the municipalities of Montelibano 
and Puerto Libertador. This value chain also represents an alternative to the fishing sector and generates 
employment and income, and the value chain's offer only covers 30% of the national demand. Finally, 
there were opportunities to strengthen technical and organizational capacities.
ACTIVITIES DEVELOPED IN CORDOBA: Between 2019 and 2020, CDLO supported the 
implementation of the activities Fishing for Opportunities and Regional Fish Farming Development in the 
municipalities of Montelibano and Puerto Libertador, respectively. The purpose of these activities was 
to improve the fish farming value chain quality, productivity, and competitiveness through the socio￾entrepreneurial strengthening of eight CBOs in the territories of: Tierradentro Fish and Agricultural 
Producers Association (ASPROPISAT), ASUMUCPT, ASOCAMDETI, ASOPROATI, ASVIDASTI from 
Montelibano and Southern Cordoba, Ecological Agricultural and Livestock Producers Association 
(AGROECOSURCO), Juan Jose Alto San Jorge Association of Farmers, Producers and Innovators 
(ACOMPIS), and South Cordoba Farmers' Association (ASCSUCOR) from Puerto Libertador. The 
project benefited the families of 81 producers in Montelibano and 61 in Puerto Libertador. 52 young 
people were trained in fish farming entrepreneurship under an agreement with SENA.
CDLO's intervention focused on strengthening and consolidating the value chain by developing 
technology transfer models and improving technical, productive, organizational, and commercial 
capacities. It also sought to promote commercialization dynamics through public-private partnerships. 
Specifically, the actions implemented in the activities were aimed at strengthening the CBOs in internal 
organizational aspects and administrative management. They also made efforts to improve the 
production process, such as the farm registrations management, relevant sanitary registrations, food 
handling, implementation, and improvement of the cold chain and evisceration instruments. 
ACTORS INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITIES: Different actors were involved in developing the 
activities, which were designed and coordinated to contribute to the achievement of the expected 
results. This included both national and local entities, as listed below.
National entities: The Territorial Renewal Agency (ART, by its acronym in Spanish) was involved in the 
activity through a PDET initiative associated with the fish farming chain. SENA, through the SER Rural 
entrepreneurship program, provided technical training in entrepreneurship and certified technical 
training in fish farming production. In coordination with the Government of Cordoba, the National 
Aquaculture and Fishing Authority contributed to the production chain revitalization in research, 
financial education, banking, credit management, interest rates, and organic inputs, which contributed to 
the formalization of production units. 
Local entities: The mayor's offices of Montelibano and Puerto Libertador provided technical assistance, 
improved productive infrastructure, and delivered inputs and food. It also contributed to the regional 
dissemination of the fish farming chain. The Government of Cordoba coordinated with the National 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 106
Aquaculture and Fisheries Authority in all of its activities. The Universidad de Cordoba implemented a 
technological package to improve productivity and product quality. ACUICOOP and El Gaitero Fish 
farming, as commercial partners, implemented rural extension, provided seed, transferred letters of 
credit, and purchased 20 tons of cachama per month.
THE ACTIVITIES RESULTS: The activities had relevant results for different aspects of CDLO, such as 
capacity building; provision of goods, services, and infrastructure; and generating alliances, among others. 
• Capacities: Two CBOs, ASPROPISAT and AGROECOSURCO, significantly improved internal 
administrative, financial, and accounting management, and began developing a business plan that 
emphasizes commercial and productive components. Productive practices were adopted with respect 
to biometrics, feeding tables, water quality, oxygenation systems, production cycle planning, and 
technical crop management. Family and production records were also prepared for the fish farmers. 
• Training: 52 young people were trained by SENA as fish farming technicians.
• Production infrastructure: A cold storage center was installed in each corridor where activities were
carried out, each provided handling instruments with a three tons capacity. Through the delivery of 
equipment and instruments, CDLO supported the creation and operation of an ACUICOOP regional 
point of sale, a CBO that provides institutional management for the business, credit for working 
capital, and technical assistance services, for which it is certified by EPSEA. 
• Formalization: The productive units of three organizations were made formal, and the process was 
initiated for other units in coordination with AUNAP. 
• Financing: A revolving fund of 13 million pesos was established, and the producers invested 85 million 
pesos of their resources as working capital. Likewise, 34 individual credits for capital working 
resources of up to 300 million were arranged with Banco Agrario, the Coseche Program, and Venta a 
la Fija.
• Production: In the two municipalities, production increased from 1.8 tons per month to 7.9 tons per 
month. 
• Sales and income: CBOs’ sales increased; ASPROPISAT, for example, had sales of 28 million in 2018 
and 68 million in 2019. ACUICOOP, which had no sales in 2018, sold 81 million in 2019. Twenty five 
percent of producers increased their income from 190,000 to 371,000, 40 percent increased from 
190,000 to 250,000, and 35 percent remained the same. 
• Alliances and promotional spaces: Three commercial partnerships were established between 
ACUICOOP and the CBOs ASPORPISAT, AGROECOSURCO, and ASCADECRIM. The associations 
of the two municipalities formed the Southern Cordoba Fish Farming Network REPSANJOR. 
Promotional opportunities were developed for the chain, such as the Roundtable with AUNAP, the 
first Fish Farming Business Roundtable, and the Let's Talk about Fish Farming Symposium.
107 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX III: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MATRIX
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Q1: How have the socio￾economic, institutional, and 
political context in CDLO's 
areas affected the critical 
assumptions, performance, 
and effectiveness of the 
formulated activities?
F.1.1. The CDLO-targeted territories have high 
levels of poverty and violence, as well as the 
presence of armed groups and illicit crops.
F.1.2. The security conditions of CDLO-targeted 
territories affected the operation of the activity, 
particularly concerning ease of entering the 
territory, scheduling interventions, and self￾protection actions. 
F.1.3. CDLO operates mostly in areas of the 
corridors that have a lower presence of illicit 
crop cultivation, which has helped generate 
clusters of licit economies. 
F.1.4. Communities have mostly positive 
expectations regarding the effects of the peace 
agreement, and this has helped shape the 
definition of CDLO activities. 
F.1.5. Despite the implementation of the PDETs, 
CDLO-targeted territories continue to be less 
accessible to public goods and services (including 
the internet) and exhibit lower institutional 
capacity than non-CDLO-targeted municipalities 
of the same region. This affects the establishment, 
results, and sustainability of CDLO activities.
F.1.6. CDLO's interactions with local actors to 
understand the territory and leverage previous 
knowledge and experiences allows for the design 
of activities aligned to the needs and nuanced 
context of the territory. 
F.1.7. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic 
have impacted the implementation of CDLO, 
requiring the design of new initiatives and the 
adaptation of others, which resulted in delays. 
The pandemic has also had a negative impact on 
market conditions, potentially jeopardizing the 
results of some of the interventions.
C.1.1. The differing context in CDLO 
municipalities, particularly the high rates of 
poverty and violence, the presence of armed 
groups, and the presence of illicit economies, 
determine the targeting, implementation, and 
results of CDLO activities, meaning that 
clusters of licit economies have been 
successfully created in areas with a lower 
presence of illicit crops cultivation (Findings 1, 
2, and 3).
C.1.2. Even though CDLO municipalities often 
overlap with areas targeted for GoC 
development activities under Colombia’s 2016 
Peace Agreement, the limitations of 
infrastructure and provision of basic services, 
as well as the low institutional capacity across 
CDLO municipalities, affected the results of 
the Activity (Findings 4 and 5).
C.1.3. CDLO has been successful in adjusting 
the design and operation of the Activity to the 
characteristics of the territories, leveraging 
previous knowledge and experiences and 
adapting to changing contexts, as seen during 
the COVID-19 pandemic (Findings 6 and 7).
R.1.1. Continue working to generate clusters of licit 
economies in the territories most affected by poverty 
and violence. (Conclusion 1.1). 
R.1.2. Publish a document systematizing the Activity's 
targeting process, including how strategic corridors, 
municipalities, and CBOs were selected; what was 
learned from this process; and recommendations for 
future similar activities. (Conclusions 1.2 and 1.3). 
R.1.3. Manage alliances with the public and private 
sectors and with international development agencies 
to identify and articulate strategies to increase the 
access of CBOs and communities to Information and 
Communications Technology and strengthen their 
digital skills. (Conclusion 1.2). 
R.1.4. Analyze and systematize elements of 
contingency plans that allow CDLO to respond quickly 
and effectively to future challenges that may arise, 
including strikes, pandemics, and climatic events, 
among other events that may limit mobility, 
communication, and the performance of economic and 
social activities in a territory. (Conclusion 1.3).
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 108
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
Q2: What capacity-building 
effects are seen in community 
groups and producer 
organizations that benefited 
from CDLO’s activities?
F.2.1. CDLO strengthened JACs' managerial 
capacities for the efficient implementation of 
infrastructure initiatives, including strengthening 
human, physical, financial resource management, 
and contracting formality. 
F.2.2. While JACs reported that they have the 
capacity to continue executing infrastructure 
initiatives, fewer than half have done this. 
F.2.3. CDLO has strengthened the technical and 
organizational capacities of producer CBOs in the 
creation and consolidation of businesses. CDLO 
has been able to achieve this through 
accompaniment and training and by incorporating 
commercial partnerships with private sector 
partners. 
F.2.4. CDLO strengthened the commercial 
capacities of producer CBOs, in part by working 
with private sector partners through commercial 
partnerships. However, not all producer CBOs 
reported current commercial agreements or 
increases in sales. 
F.2.5. CDLO has built other CBOs’ capacities to 
support and complement territorial development, 
including by strengthening their planning 
processes and diversifying their activities. 
However, challenges remain for CBOs to 
continue offering their services beyond CDLO. 
F.2.6. Youth internship and training programs 
have been successful in strengthening the 
capacities of young people and enabling 
organizations to benefit from these strengthened 
capacities, promoting generational change. 
F.2.7. CDLO has built capacities and fostered 
leadership renewal in CBOs; however, challenges 
remain, including improving management and 
increasing female and youth leadership. 
F.2.8. Despite progress in generating associative 
capacities, challenges remain, including low trust 
and poor perception of collective work 
capacities. 
C.2.1. CDLO has strengthened the internal 
capacity of CBOs, demonstrating the relevance 
of its strengthening strategy, which is based on 
the direct participation of CBOs in the design 
and implementation of territorial development 
activities. In particular, JACs have gained the 
capacity to manage resources in executing 
infrastructure projects efficiently. Producer 
CBOs have worked on designing and 
implementing organizational and productive 
strategies to respond to market demands. 
Other CBOs have assumed a more active role 
in territorial development within their mission 
and vision framework. In addition, the strategy 
has strengthened young people’s capacities, and 
these youth have transferred capacity gains to 
their organizations. However, despite this 
progress, there is still a need to continue 
building the capacity (including technical 
capacity building) of CBOs in CDLO territories 
(Findings F.2.1, F.2.2, F.2.3, and F.2.6). 
C.2.2. Regarding the commercial aspect, 
CDLO has strengthened CBOs’ capacity to 
identify and build commercial partnerships with 
local and regional private sector actors. 
However, many organizations do not have 
current commercial partnerships, nor do they 
report increases in annual sales (Findings F.2.4 
and F.2.5). 
C.2.3. While CDLO has strengthened CBOs’ 
organizational capacity and reinforced the 
social fabric, challenges persist in strengthening 
trust, building willingness to work as a team, 
enabling conflict resolution, and encouraging 
leadership renewal (Findings F.2.7 and F.2.8).
C.2.4. CBO capacity-building processes 
promote a culture of legality and formality in 
CDLO corridors, and CDLO should continue 
pursuing and improving these processes. 
(Finding F.2.9).
R.2.1. Publish and disseminate a document 
systematizing the lessons learned from CDLO´s 
practical support model for CBOs, identifying good 
practices and generating recommendations for future 
support carried out by CDLO and/or other programs 
(Conclusion 2.1). 
R.2.2. Continue strengthening the support, 
accompaniment, and follow-up to commercialization 
activities of producer CBOs to deepen and scale 
commercialization results by working jointly with 
private actors (Conclusion 2.2). 
R.2.3. Strengthen, as part of the integral support 
provided to CBOs, the accompaniment and training 
provided to CBOs in terms of conflict resolution, 
trust, teamwork, and possible leadership renewal 
(Conclusion 2.3). 
R.2.4. Publish and disseminate a document 
systematizing the design, implementation, and lessons 
learned from the training, internship, and exchange 
strategies targeting rural youth developed by CDLO 
(Conclusion 2.1). 
R.2.5. Design and implement internal and external 
communication strategies to specifically highlight the 
relevance and benefits of being part of the culture of 
legality in CDLO territories (Conclusion 2.4).
109 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
F.2.9. In terms of capacity building, CDLO 
contributes to generating capacity for a culture of 
legality and formality among CBOs, an aspect that 
could be addressed more directly in the 
implementation of the activity.
Q3: Has CDLO's intervention 
been efficient and effective in 
creating a local environment 
conducive to a licit economy 
in the targeted regions?
F.3.1. CDLO has contributed to strengthening 
the local economic conditions through 
improvements in road infrastructure that have 
reduced travel times and costs. 
F.3.2. CDLO has contributed to improving local 
economic conditions directly through the 
provision of productive assets and indirectly 
through improvements in access to public 
services and social infrastructure. 
F.3.3. Although the majority of producer CBOs 
engaged in traditional economic activities, CDLO 
has largely financed non-traditional economic 
activities such as rural tourism and gastronomy, 
contributing to the diversification of the local 
economy. 
F.3.4. CDLO has stimulated value-generating 
activities for producer CBOs, contributing to the 
diversification of the local economic conditions. 
F.3.5. CDLO has trained young people in 
activities such as gastronomy, jewelry, and the 
production of musical instruments, supporting 
them in accessing economic opportunities and 
helping diversify the local economy while 
reinforcing cultural traditions. 
F.3.6. CDLO has successfully leveraged other 
resources in the targeted territories for 
infrastructure projects. However, more 
resources could be leveraged by the economic 
component of the activity for crucial services 
associated with the activities. 
F.3.7. CBOs perceived a positive and improving 
economic environment. 
F.3.8. CBOs recognize CDLO as the main actor 
making economic contributions.
C.3.1. By supporting producer CBOs, CDLO 
has contributed to the generation of added 
value and the strengthening of economic 
activities in CDLO territories, especially 
regarding non-traditional economic activities 
(Findings F.3.3, F.3.4, and F.3.5).
C.3.2. In addition to the direct CDLO 
investments to strengthen productive activities 
and the provision of productive assets, the 
Activity has successfully supported the 
construction and improvement of 
infrastructure, which also has positively 
impacted the context for the development of 
local economic activities (Findings F.3.1, F.3.2, 
and F.3.6).
C.3.3. CBO members have positive 
perceptions of local economic conditions. 
CBOs recognize CDLO's economic 
contributions, and more than two-thirds of the 
CBOs report that the organization´s income, 
as a whole, increased. However, several 
organizations still do not generate income, 
demonstrating the challenges faced in 
strengthening the economic activities of the 
organizations (Findings F.3.7, F.3.8, and F.3.9).
C.3.4. The evaluation identified support that 
environmental assistance could be integrated 
into CDLO financed activities even though 
environmental assistance is not part of CDLO's 
current intervention model, including support 
to access technical assistance and sources of 
financing and strengthening related to 
environmentally sustainable development. 
Including these aspects in future programs 
could improve the scope and sustainability of 
supported economic activities (Findings F.3.10 
and F.3.11).
R.3.1. Design and implement actions to expand the 
effective and extensive use of productive and social 
infrastructure and productive assets provided with 
CDLO support, generating sustained positive impacts 
in the local economy (Conclusions 3.1 and 3.2). 
R.3.2. Continue combining actions to diversify the 
economy and support the production and 
commercialization of sustainable products that are 
part of traditional economies in future CDLO support 
or future programs implemented in the territories 
(Conclusion 3.1). 
R.3.3. Strengthen the actions carried out to guarantee 
the sustainability of the support granted by CDLO to 
CBOs, depending on the type of organization and 
productive activity, with special emphasis on achieving 
complementarity in the access of CBOs to other 
programs. This will ensure that the support provided 
by CDLO acts as part of an integrated but finite 
intervention model while contributing to the 
indicators of leveraged resources by the program. 
(Conclusion 3.3). 
R.3.4. Design and implement a strategy to support 
CBOs in identifying and managing alternative financing 
necessary to continue or scale their productive 
activities (Conclusions 3.3 and 3.4). 
R.3.5. Carry out actions to facilitate and support the 
access of producer CBOs to technical assistance, 
including through the public Agricultural Extension 
Subsystem (SEA), as well as other local market actors 
offering the service. By doing so, the capacity-building 
processes supported by the CDLO will be 
complemented by access to technical assistance that 
enhances the productive and commercial capacities of 
organizations (Conclusion 3.4). 
R.3.6. Analyze approaches and actions to support 
green and environmentally sustainable products worth 
incorporating into the CDLO support model for 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 110
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
F.3.9. CBOs reported progress in income 
generation, although a large number of CBOs still 
do not generate income or profits. 
F.3.10. Challenges to improving the scope and 
sustainability of production, commercialization, 
and profit generation remain. These include 
access to technical assistance, technology, 
machinery, and financing. Although the latter is 
not part of CDLO´s model, CBOs identified the 
need for this additional service. The challenges 
identified by CBOs vary according to their degree 
of economic maturity. 
F.3.11. The productive activities supported by 
CDLO are in line with the productive vocations 
of the territories, and the majority of CBOs carry 
out environmental control activities. Although 
support for economic activities with a focus on 
environmental sustainability has not been at the 
core of CDLO, opportunities may exist to 
enhance local economic conditions. 
F.3.12. There are limitations to the information 
accessed by CDLO regarding changes in the 
variables of CBOs’ economic activity (e.g., 
quantities produced, revenues, costs, profits).
C.3.5. CDLO complies with USAID's 
environmental area requirements and 
Colombian environmental regulations. 
However, the intervention model does not 
include specific actions related to 
environmental practices, which some CBOs 
have developed independently. These practices 
could be supported as a mechanism to 
strengthen the added value and compliance 
with standards that some markets may 
demand, which are worth incorporating 
because of their potential benefit to 
organizations (Finding F.3.11).
C.3.6. Opportunities may exist to improve the 
quantity and quality of information on the 
economic performance of CBOs to identify 
changes related to CDLO support (Finding 
F.3.12).
producer CBOs, seeking to expand business 
opportunities that contribute to local, sustainable 
development (Conclusions 3.4 and 3.5). 
R.3.7. Design and implement a strategy to deepen the 
quantitative and aggregated analysis of economic 
performance data of the producer CBOs supported by 
CDLO (Conclusion 3.6).
Q4: How effective has the 
Activity´s model to provide 
goods and services reached 
its results?
F.4.1. CDLO has contributed to improving the 
provision and quality of road infrastructure. 
F.4.2. The model of execution of projects 
through JACs has been successful, even 
generating surpluses that were reinvested in the 
communities. 
F.4.3. CDLO has contributed to improving the 
provision and quality of local productive 
infrastructure, contributing in turn to the 
improvement of the economic environment. 
However, the effective use of the infrastructure 
could be expanded. 
F.4.4. CDLO has contributed to improving the 
provision and quality of social infrastructure in 
the intervention territories. 
C.4.1. CDLO’s infrastructure creates direct 
mobility benefits by reducing transportation 
times and costs and improving the economic 
environment (Findings F.4.1 and F.4.3).
C.4.2. Through road improvements and the 
provision of utilities in schools and community 
centers, CDLO contributes indirectly to 
increasing access to basic services. However, 
low access rates still require coordinated 
actions that are beyond the scope of the 
Activity (Findings F.4.4 and F.4.5).
C.4.3. JACs are efficient in managing the 
available resources (including schedule, budget, 
and labor) when executing CDLO 
infrastructure projects, which demonstrates 
that efficient execution enables the generation 
of surpluses to finance new projects and wins 
them the necessary internal and external 
R.4.1. Design and implement a strategy to further 
document and promote the infrastructure projects 
execution model with JACs, taking advantage of the 
capacity generated and the possibilities of replication 
as a strategy to enhance local development as input 
for USAID Colombia (Conclusions 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. 
and 4.5.). 
R.4.2. Analyze the scope, reach, and pertinence of 
including indicators such as CDLO-04-C (Percentage 
increase in the number of citizens with access to 
public services provided by municipalities supported 
by CDLO) and CDLO-14-O (Percentage change in the 
school dropout rate) in future USAID programs, 
recognizing that these types of indicators respond to 
aggregate municipal effects that can exceed the 
operating capacity of a specific activity (Conclusion 
4.6).
111 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
F.4.5. CDLO has indirectly contributed to 
improving access to basic services. 
F.4.6. The projects to improve the provision and 
quality of public goods and services financed by 
CDLO are in line with local needs and, in most 
cases, have met expectations. 
F.4.7. CDLO and governments are recognized in 
the communities as the main actors supporting 
infrastructure maintenance. 
F.4.8. The infrastructure projects financed by the 
activity benefit CBO communities as well as 
neighboring communities. 
F.4.9. Most CBOs participate in the design, 
execution, and follow-up of infrastructure 
projects. Their participation has been diverse. 
F.4.10. The successful use of resources has 
allowed JACs to gain internal and external 
legitimacy, which could facilitate procurement for 
future projects. 
F.4.11. CDLO has been able to connect to and 
leverage budgetary resources from other sources 
for infrastructure projects, although coordination 
between local governments and JACs regarding 
the execution of infrastructure projects has been 
limited. 
F.4.12. Despite CDLO's contributions, challenges 
to improving the provision of rural goods and 
services remain. These challenges should be 
addressed jointly with relevant actors.
legitimacy to carry them out. However, few 
JACs have carried out other projects (Findings 
F.4.2 and F.4.10).
C.4.4. CDLO’s goods and services provision 
projects respond to the needs of CBOs and 
communities. Governments and the CDLO 
Activity are recognized as the leading actors 
supporting infrastructure maintenance, 
benefiting targeted communities and 
communities in neighboring areas (Findings 
F.4.6, F.4.7, and F.4.8). 
C.4.5. CBOs participate in different stages of 
infrastructure projects, achieving efficient 
execution and gaining legitimacy. The above 
also helps CBOs to continue to serve as 
executors of future projects (Findings F.4.9 and 
F.4.10). 
C.4.6. Despite the successful completion of 
projects, and even though CDLO has 
coordinated with and leveraged budgetary 
resources from different sources, there are still 
challenges to improving the provision of goods 
and services in the targeted territories, 
although these go beyond the scope of the 
activity (Findings F.4.11and F.4.12).
Q5: How effective have the 
multilevel dialogue 
mechanisms fostered 
community participation and 
increased the impact on 
territorial socio-economic 
development decisions?
F.5.1. Through the development of infrastructure 
projects with CBOs, CDLO has been able to 
start building the trust required to engage in 
multilevel dialogue. 
F.5.2. CDLO has successfully created networks 
that connect CBOs and contribute to building 
clusters of licit economies in the corridors. 
F.5.3. CDLO promotes interaction between 
producer CBOs engaged in traditional and non￾traditional economic activities. 
C.5.1. Building on the trust generated by 
economic and infrastructure projects, the 
multilevel dialogue mechanism has constructed 
and strengthened interdependence networks 
between CBOs. Through these networks, licit 
economies have flourished in communities 
where, in the past, armed conflict affected 
relationships and communication between 
actors (Findings F.5.1 and F.5.2).
C.5.2. Horizontal linkages facilitated by CDLO 
between traditional and non-traditional 
R.5.1. Systematize and disseminate the multilevel 
dialogue strategy implemented by CDLO, promoting 
its replication by other USAID activities and other 
actors, thus articulating more voices for territorial 
development (Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). 
R.5.2. Expand the scale of the existing multilevel 
dialogue strategy also to generate horizontal dialogue 
and coordination between CBOs, including between 
those supported by CDLO and other USAID activities, 
both at the local level and across regions, as a means 
to scale up dialogue, horizontal transfer of knowledge, 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 112
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
F.5.4. CDLO promotes interaction between 
producer CBOs (from traditional and non￾traditional economic activities) and other CBOs, 
such as those engaged in communication 
activities. 
F.5.5. CBOs report improved capacities 
interacting with the public and private sectors as 
a result of CDLO support, although this 
confidence is still under construction. 
F.5.6. The majority of CBOs interact with public 
actors in participatory spaces around public 
policies. 
F.5.7. CDLO has generated opportunities to 
strengthen the relationship between CBOs and 
the public and private sectors. 
F.5.8. The communication activities supported by 
CDLO are successful in creating new meanings 
for local identity and culture, as well as making 
known and amplifying the messages derived from 
the multilevel dialogues.
economy CBOs have created interrelationships 
and values based on the territory's potential 
and its different actors (Findings F.5.3 and 
F.5.4). 
C.5.3. CDLO has successfully built capacity, 
opportunities, and trust that allow CBOs to 
communicate and strengthen relationships with 
the public and private sectors; most CBOs 
already interact predominantly with public 
stakeholders (Findings F.5.5, F.5.6, and F.5.7). 
C.5.4. Communication strategies (e.g., mural
painting, music, radio) have redefined the 
collective identity of municipalities stigmatized 
by drug trafficking and armed conflict, 
generating a sense of belonging, pride, and self￾worth. However, there is additional space to 
continue supporting and increasing the scope 
of these strategies (Finding F.5.8).
and the form and consolidate networks throughout 
different territories (Conclusion 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). 
R.5.3. Design and implement a strategy to deepen and 
expand the scope of the content created by the 
communication groups supported by CDLO as a 
mechanism to disseminate the approaches and 
achievements of the territorial projects supported by 
the Activity (Conclusion 5.4).
Q6: How effective has 
CDLO’s contribution been to 
the regional development 
strategy devised and 
implemented by the 
government of Colombia 
through different planning 
initiatives?
F.6.1. CDLO has contributed to the design and 
implementation of policies and projects; for 
example, it has supported local authorities in 
presenting PDET projects or connecting and 
complementing investments. 
F.6.2. Some achievements were evident in the 
connection and coordination between CDLO and 
government entities (ART, SENA) and with other 
international development programs. 
Coordination between CDLO´s activities and the 
municipalities occurred in some processes in 
their initial phase, but there is no evidence of 
sustained joint work throughout the Activity´s 
implementation. 
F.6.3. CDLO has supported the participation of 
CBOs in local participation processes. 
F.6.4. To date, there is little evidence of direct 
contributions by the Activity to adjust public 
policy processes; for example, extensively 
systematizing and disseminating participatory 
methodologies, good practice guides, or 
C.6.1. CDLO has promoted the participation 
of CBOs in formal spaces for local participation 
and planning and has supported coordination 
processes with territorial and national 
government entities. However, there is an 
opportunity to further strengthen joint work 
for constituting and implementing territorial 
development initiatives (Findings F.6.1, F.6.2, 
and F.6.3). 
C.6.2. CDLO methodologies recognized as 
valuable by different actors have not yet been 
systematized or transferred to other actors 
who were not initially part of the Activity. 
There is an opportunity to share this 
knowledge and replicate CDLO activities in 
other programs and government policies 
(Finding F.6.4).
R.6.1. Strengthen the coordination between USAID 
programs implemented in the CDLO territories to 
advance possible integration efforts that allow 
supporting the territories and communities under a 
differential intervention approach responding to 
specific needs. (Conclusions 6.1 and 6.2). 
R.6.2. Strengthen the coordination strategy between 
USAID, other development agencies, NGOs, and 
public actors that operate in a territory, so that the 
initiatives carried out by each are known and 
coordinated. This seeks to minimize duplication of 
efforts between different actors and achieve a more 
coordinated process that leverages and integrates 
resources and activities to increase development 
interventions and access to goods and services 
(Conclusions 6.1 and 6.2). 
R.6.3. Design a strategy to strengthen the participation 
of CBOs in the territorial planning processes, including 
within the framework of the Territorial Planning 
Councils, for exercises related to the PND 2022-2026 
113 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 9. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EVALUATION QUESTIONS FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
brochures of systematized successful 
interventions of the program to other actors 
could increase the possibilities of scaling up and 
replicating CDLO models in other types of 
programs. 
and local institutional strengthening processes 
(Conclusion 6.1). 
R.6.4. Consider the feasibility of CDLO acting as an 
external technical adviser in participatory processes, 
including those of the PDETs. Recognize the relevance 
of participatory spaces in leveraging and defining 
investments that can contribute to closing gaps in 
access to goods and services and in strengthening 
clusters of licit economies in the territories prioritized 
by the Activity (Conclusion 6.1 and 6.2). 
R.6.5. Strengthen and expand the development of 
communication sessions on the results and lessons 
learned from CDLO operations with local 
governments, national government agencies, other 
development agencies, union organizations, and other 
relevant actors promoting territorial development 
(Conclusion 6.2).
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 114
ANNEX IV: DETAILED METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This Annex reflects the methodology the evaluation team implemented to respond to evaluation
questions. The Annex is structured in six sections. The first section contains the conceptual framework 
used to design and implement the evaluation. The second section presents the design matrix, a 
methodological tool that establishes the evaluation’s structure and content by linking the evaluation 
questions to the evaluation’s categories, variables, and indicators; the sources of information; the 
instruments that were applied; and the methods of analysis used to answer each question. The third 
section specifies the two types of elements used to develop the evaluation: 1) the common elements to 
all the evaluation questions, which are used systematically to address each of the evaluation questions
and 2) the specific elements that the evaluation team applied to some of the questions according to their 
characteristics and the objectives of the analysis. The fourth and fifth sections detail the qualitative and 
quantitative methodologies, methods and techniques used in the evaluation. The sixth section details the 
spatial approach. The evaluation team used this method to analyze and triangulate the qualitative and 
quantitative data. 
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH 
The point of departure to carry out the mid-term evaluation was the analytical assumption that CDLO 
achievements can be understood and analyzed as the sum of the results of the activities carried out in 
the intervention geographic corridors. Within this framework, the evaluation team used the Territorial 
Competitiveness Model (based on the local endogenous potential) as the first conceptual axis to better 
understand the processes. Capacities generated at the territorial level that drive development through 
elements, including a shared vision of the territory, improved governance capacity through the 
strengthening of territorial88 and relational capital, the non-monetary valuation of local resources, and 
innovation89 are part of the model. 
Alongside the use of this analytical and methodological approach, the CDLO Activity aims to maximize 
synergies between its four central components through economic activities that help promote economic 
environments that produce positive, sustainable externalities. Our analysis sought to glean insights into 
opportunities in innovative environments related to optimization processes focused on increasing trust 
among diverse actors, reducing transaction costs, and increasing economic, social, and environmental 
sustainability.90
According to the Territorial Competitiveness Model and the Innovative Environments approach, 
economic, environmental, and social value increases when agents at different levels coordinate and 
cooperate through formal and informal alliances aimed at economic and societal progress through multi￾level collective actions.91 This approach allows for a holistic understanding of the cultural, social, political, 
88 Trujillo, Erazo, Loaiza, 2018, La sostenibilidad del capital territorial: propuesta metodológica para su análisis y valoración. 89 Canzanelli, G. 2003, Competitividad Territorial, inclusión social, instrumentos para el desarrollo económico local. 
90 Canzanelli, G. 2004, Valorización del potencial endógeno, competitividad territorial y lucha contra la pobreza. 91 Porter, M. and Kramer, M. 2011, Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review.
115 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
and economic dynamics of environments. In this way, social, political, and economic actors are 
encouraged to build relationships to optimize value chains at the territorial level (See Exhibit 38).
Exhibit 38. Territorial sustainable development analysis
SOURCE: ANALYTICAL TOOL DEVELOPED BY THE EVALUATION TEAM
The evaluation focused on strategically analyzing relationships between actors at the local, regional, and 
national levels that are part of the intervention strategy proposed by the CDLO Activity. The evaluation 
team used quantitative and qualitative instruments of its own design and implemented the qualitative 
instruments. An external firm implemented the quantitative instruments.
The evaluation team used the Value Mapping tool to analyze opportunities to promote the sustainability 
of territorial development and define strategies to optimize territorial competitiveness. By using this 
analytical tool, it was possible to define territorial dynamics and opportunities for improvement in a 
heterogeneous set of ecosystems (contexts/corridors). The proposed analysis was the result of the 
definition of both positive and negative perceptions, as well as possible bottlenecks and windows of 
opportunity in the community. Public and private strategies focused on socio-economic development.92
EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX 
The Evaluation Design Matrix is a methodological tool that allows for a logical and systematic analysis of 
CDLO Activity components and indicators by linking the questions from the scope of work (SOW) with 
92 Bocken, N. and Short, S (2015) Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. Brinkmann, S. y Kvale, S. (2018). Doing 
interviews. London: Sage Publications.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 116
data sources, methods, and data analysis. The tool further facilitates analysis by connecting the 
evaluation questions to the analysis categories and indicators. The matrix includes columns for detailing 
the sources of information and the actors from whom the information was obtained, in addition to the 
instruments for quantitative and qualitative data collection. Finally, the matrix reflects the scope of the 
evaluation.
The evaluation team prepared the matrix based on the of the SOW (Annex VII). Below are the key 
questions that guided the evaluation process, as well as the evaluation design matrix and an overview of 
the mixed methods techniques used to establish the performance of CDLO Activity, including three 
methodological components (quantitative, qualitative, and spatial) that are described in detail in the 
following sections. 
117 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 10. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 1: HOW HAVE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT IN CDLO'S AREAS 
AFFECTED THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS, PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FORMULATED ACTIVITIES?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNOGRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCES
Social 
Coexistence 
and Conflict
Public Safety Perception of Citizen Security X X X X X 
Murders X 
Interpersonal Violence X 
Violence 
Associated with 
Post-Peace 
Agreement
Presence of Illegal Armed 
Groups
 X 
Extortion X 
Confrontations / Terrorist 
Acts X 
Recruitment of Minors X 
Forced Displacement X 
Massacres X 
Threats and Murders of Social 
Leaders
 X 
Illicit Rural 
Economies
Illicit Crops and 
Drugs
Illicit Crops ACT-CDLO-C01 X 
Drug-Processing X 
Drug Trade X 
Illegal Mining Gold Mining X 
Other Illegal 
Economies
Sexual Exploitation X 
Human Trafficking X 
Political￾Institutional 
Context
Institutional 
Offer 
Associated with 
the Peace 
Agreement
National Government X X X X X X 
Territorial Government ACT-CDLO-C04 X X X 
International Cooperation X X X X X 
Participation in Elections X 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 118
TABLE 10. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 1: HOW HAVE THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC, INSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT IN CDLO'S AREAS 
AFFECTED THE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS, PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FORMULATED ACTIVITIES?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNOGRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCES
Political 
Participation 
Public Policy Preferences and 
Expectations X X 
Socio- Economic 
Context 
Characterization 
of CDLO agents
Glass-root Members of the 
Organizations 
CDLO-01-C X 
Executives and Leaders of the 
Organizations 
X 
Local Community 
Organizations (Social, JACs, 
Producers)
X 
Private (commercial partners) X X X X 
Effects on 
COVID-19 on 
the Territory
Morbidity X 
Illegality and Conflict X 
Economic and Social X X 
CDLO Operation X X X 
Poverty Multidimensional Poverty ACT-CDLO-C02 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
/1 Quantitative Instruments
/ 2 Qualitative Instruments
119 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 11. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 2: WHAT ARE THE CAPACITY-BUILDING EFFECTS SEEN IN COMMUNITY GROUPS AND PRODUCER 
ORGANIZATIONS BENEFITED BY CDLO’S ACTIVITIES?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNOGRAPHIC 
TOURSY2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCE
Capacity 
Building
Management 
Capacities of 
Local 
Community 
Organizations 
Government CDLO-11-O X 
Administrative X 
Planning X 
Human 
Resources 
X 
X 
Financial 
Management 
X 
X 
Social and 
Community 
Management 
Capacities 
Skills for 
Associativity 
 X X X X X 
Conflict 
Management 
 X X X 
Interpersonal 
Trust-Building
 X X X 
Shared values 
and visions of 
territorial 
development
 X X X 
CDLO 
strategies and 
instruments 
for capacity 
building
Participants 
Selection
 X X 
Methodology X X 
Scope X X 
Achievements X X 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
/1 Quantitative Instruments
/ 2 Qualitative Instruments
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 120
TABLE 12. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 3: HAS CDLO'S INTERVENTION BEEN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN CREATING A LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 
CONDUCIVE TO A LICIT ECONOMY IN THE TARGETED REGIONS?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY 
OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO- GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCE
Community 
Economic 
Dynamization
Development 
of productive 
infrastructure 
to support the 
legal economy
Infrastructure of public goods 
for community use (tertiary 
roads/roads, internet, etc.)
CDLO-05-C 
CDLO-12-O
X X X X X X 
Productive infrastructure 
(irrigation/drainage, machinery 
banks, recollection, storage, 
means of transportation) 
Development 
of social public 
infrastructure 
to support the 
legal economy
Social public infrastructure: 
education, health, culture, 
recreation and sports.
X X X X X X 
Support 
Services 
Strengthening
Technical Services CDLO-15-O X X X X X X 
Financial Services X X X X 
Commercial Services X X X X X 
Linkages to 
Markets 
Identification of new economic 
opportunities
X X X X 
Linkages between producers, 
companies, and markets 
(establishment or 
strengthening).
X X X X 
Public-private partnerships 
with producer organizations 
and local companies.
CDLO-08-C 
CDLO-13-O
X X X X 
Utilization of 
economic 
opportunities 
Diversification 
of productive 
activities
New productive activities of 
traditional and non-traditional 
economy.
CDLO-06-C X X X X 
Innovation 
Processes 
Benefits of innovation on the 
performance of economic 
activities
X X X X X X 
Assessment of 
local assets
Adding value to existing 
processes
X X X X X 
121 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 12. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 3: HAS CDLO'S INTERVENTION BEEN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN CREATING A LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 
CONDUCIVE TO A LICIT ECONOMY IN THE TARGETED REGIONS?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY 
OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO- GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCE
New creative ventures (e.g. 
orange economy, economía 
naranja).
X X X X X X 
Sustainability 
of the 
intervention
Economic - 
Financial
Barriers to expanding sales and 
income.
X X X 
Private resources leveraged 
from CDLO investments
CDLO-07-C X 
Innovative characteristics of 
newly formed business 
partnerships
X X X X 
Prospects for opening new 
local and international markets
X X 
Social Culture of legality X X X X
Environmental Use, assessment and 
replenishment of natural 
resources
X X X X X X 
/1 Quantitative Instruments
/ 2 Qualitative Instruments
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
TABLE 13. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE ACTIVITY´S MODEL TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES BEEN IN REACHING ITS 
RESULTS? 
CATEGORY SUB￾CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY 
OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO￾GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI￾STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCE
Provision of 
social goods 
and services of 
a public nature 
Access/
Coverage
Services 
built/expanded/improved:
-Residential (aqueduct, 
sewerage, energy, internet).
-Public (health, basic and 
vocational education).
CDLO-04-C 
CDLO-19-M 
X X X X X X X 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 122
TABLE 13. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 4: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE ACTIVITY´S MODEL TO PROVIDE GOODS AND SERVICES BEEN IN REACHING ITS 
RESULTS? 
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY 
OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO- GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCE
Functionality 
and quality of 
the intervened 
services
Service operation X X X X X 
Quality of good and services CDLO-14-O X X X X X
Communities’ 
involvement in 
the provision 
of goods and 
services 
Communities’ 
experiences in 
the provision 
of goods and 
services
Communities’ roles in the 
provision of goods and 
services
CDLO-03-C X X X X
Benefits and achievements X X X
Bottlenecks and organizational 
challenges
X X
Coordination 
with the 
institutional 
framework 
Coordination among 
community organizations
X X X
Coordination between 
community organizations and 
national/territorial 
governments
X X X X
/1 Quantitative Instruments
/ 2 Qualitative Instruments
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
123 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 14. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 5 HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE MECHANISMS BEEN TO FOSTER COMMUNITY 
PARTICIPATION AND INCREASE THE IMPACT IN TERRITORIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO- GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
Changes in 
multi￾stakeholder 
articulation 
levels
Relation of 
communities 
with 
stakeholders
National and local public 
sector X X X X 
Private sector
Academy 
Development cooperation 
agencies 
Communicatio
n strategies for 
territorial 
development
Local media 
and 
territorial 
development
Processes related to positive 
messages.
CDLO-09-C X X X X X 
Construction and 
transmission of information of 
public interest associated with 
the peace process.
CDLO-10-C X X X X 
Citizen 
participation 
and political 
control
Public information and 
accountability of local 
governments
 X X X 
Scope and use of information 
by the local population
 X X 
Promotion/consolidation of 
permanent mechanisms for 
response and feedback to 
community requests and 
petitions.
 X X 
Effects of 
Multi-level 
dialogue on 
decisions 
regarding the 
approach and 
strategies of 
territorial 
socioeconomic 
development
New 
leadership
Empowerment of local 
leaders and organizations
CDLO-02-C X X X X 
Multi-level 
coordination 
(community, 
public 
sector, 
private 
sector)
Participation/ concertation 
processes in municipal/ 
departmental planning
CDLO-16-O X X X 
Community initiatives 
implemented at territorial 
level
CDLO-18-M X X X X 
Creation of new local and 
regional organizations 
networks
 X X X X 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 124
TABLE 14. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 5 HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE MULTILEVEL DIALOGUE MECHANISMS BEEN TO FOSTER COMMUNITY 
PARTICIPATION AND INCREASE THE IMPACT IN TERRITORIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS?
CATEGORY SUB- CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO 
INDICATORS
SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO- GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI- STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
Changes in 
multi￾stakeholder 
articulation 
levels
Relation of 
communities 
with 
stakeholders
National and local public 
sector X X X X 
Private sector
Academy 
Development cooperation 
agencies 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
/1 Quantitative Instruments
/ 2 Qualitative Instruments
125 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 15. EVALUATION MATRIX - QUESTION 6: HOW EFFECTIVE HAS CDLO’S CONTRIBUTION BEEN TO THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY DEVISED 
AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA THROUGH DIFFERENT PLANNING INITIATIVES?
CATEGORY SUB￾CATEGORY
VARIABLE CDLO INDICATORS SURVEY OF 
DIRECTORS1
SURVEY OF 
MEMEBERS1
FOCAL 
GROUP2
SOCIAL 
MAPPING2
ETHNO￾GRAPHIC 
TOURS2
CASE 
STUDY2
SEMI￾STRUCTURED 
INTERVIEW
SECONDARY 
SOURCE
Planning of 
territorial 
development 
strategies 
Contribution 
to the 
DESIGN of 
strategies of 
the National 
or Territorial 
Governments.
Contribution of 
CDLO in 
diagnostic 
processes, 
formulation of 
plans, programs 
and/or 
territorial 
development 
projects, at 
national, 
departmental 
and/or 
municipal level.
 X 
Implementation 
of territorial 
development 
strategies 
Contribution 
to the 
EXECUTION 
of National or 
Territorial 
Government 
strategies 
Complementary 
investments/co￾financing 
leveraging GOC 
(the 
Government of 
Colombia) or 
territorial 
government 
investments
CDLO-07-C X 
Complementarity of CDLO￾funded activities (projects) with 
GOC or territorial government 
interventions.
 X 
Planning of 
territorial 
development 
strategies 
CDLO's contribution to the PUBLIC POLICY of 
territorial development
Conceptual X 
Methodological X 
Operational X 
Educational X X 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
/ 1 Quantitative Instruments
/ 2 Qualitative Instruments
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 126
APPROACH TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
The evaluation team structured the methodological approach to answer the evaluation questions based 
on two types of elements, as shown in Table 16: i) elements common to all the evaluation questions, i.e. 
those that we systematically used to address each of the evaluation questions; and ii) specific elements 
that we applied to some of the questions depending on their characteristics and the purposes of the 
analysis.
TABLE 16. METHODOLOGIES APPLIED TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
COMMON ELEMENTS TYPE QUESTION SPECIFIC ELEMENTS TYPE
Coding of information
Analysis of thematic and territorial reports
Preparation of analytical matrix 
Analysis of four case studies
Qualitative 2 Composite Index
Multiple regression
Quantitative 
3 Multiple regression Quantitative 
Interpretive phenomenological 
analysis
Qualitative 
Descriptive analysis of information from 
surveys of directors and members; 
secondary sources; and Mission indicators. 
Quantitative 4 Interpretive phenomenological 
analysis
Qualitative 
Social Mapping Geographical 5 Network Analysis Quantitative 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
We present below the methodological approach the team used to answer each of the evaluation 
questions. We detail the qualitative and quantitative methodologies, methods, and techniques we used in 
this Annex, in sections Qualitative and Quantitative methodologies.
EVALUATION QUESTION 1 asks about the factors of the territorial context impacting the 
effectiveness of the CDLO activities, as the socio-economic, institutional, and political context can affect 
the implementation of the plans initially defined between the Activity and its local partners. This is 
particularly relevant because CDLO has been implemented in geographic corridors where the Peace 
Agreement between the Government of Colombia (GOC) and the FARC-EP is implemented. The 
corridors are also characterized by low levels of institutional performance, a high presence of illegal 
armed groups, changes in political-administrative dynamics (territorial governance), and a high incidence 
of informal and illegal economies. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the actions carried out in 
2020 and 2021 are highly relevant for future decisions by USAID and the IP. 
a. Sources of information: We included the data of CLDO provided by the implementer.93 Concurrently, 
we obtained the data identified in the evaluation matrix from secondary sources, open data and requests 
to government entities and private organizations. This data was filtered to ensure consistency. Table 17 
shows the sources consulted for this question. Following this, the evaluation team analyzed the data 
from the surveys of CBO members and directors.94
93 Details of the sources reviewed can be found in Annex VI. Data Sources, CDLO Documentation and Databases section. 94 See Annex V. Instruments and Annex IV. Detailed Methodology for design and operational elements.
127 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 17. SOURCES OF SECONDARY INFORMATION 2018 – 2020
VARIABLES INDICATORS SOURCE
Murders Rate x1000 inhabitants (inhab.) Ministry of Defense
Interpersonal Violence Common injuries Rate x1000 inhab.
Presence of Illegal Armed Groups Identification of present illegal armed groups Indepaz
Extortion Rate x1000 inhab. Ministry of Defense
Confrontations / Terrorist Acts Terrorist acts -Rate x1000 inhab.
Subversive actions- -Rate x1000 inhab.
Recruitment of Minors Rate x1000 inhab. UARIV-PM
Forced Displacement Rate x1000 inhab.
Massacres Rate x1000 inhab. Ministry of Defense
Number of assassinations of social 
leaders and human rights defenders
Rate x1000 inhab. Indepaz
Illicit Crops Coca cultivation area -Hectare SIMCI
Eradicated area (by hand)- Hectare Ministry of Defense
Drug-Processing Infrastructure seizures recorded
Cocaine seizures registered -kilogram-. 
Quantity of seized liquid inputs 
Quantity of seized solid inputs 
Total seizures-Operational Results 
of Law Enforcement
Vehicles 
Vessels
Aircraft 
Gold Mining Intervention Mines 
Sexual Exploitation Terrorist acts -Rate x1000 inhab.
Human Trafficking Rate x1000 inhab. PONAL
COVID Morbidity Infection- Rate x1000 inhab. INS
Deaths -Rate x1000 inhab.
Multidimensional Poverty Multidimensional Poverty Measurement, 2018 Census 
(total). 
DANE
Territorial Government Municipal Performance Measurement (total) DNP
Municipal Performance Measurement (management) 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 128
TABLE 17. SOURCES OF SECONDARY INFORMATION 2018 – 2020
VARIABLES INDICATORS SOURCE
Municipal Performance Measurement (results) 
Change of mayor "traditional party" (2015-2019 elections) RNEC
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
b. Indicators and Estimates: Using the survey data, the evaluation team calculated indicators and 
descriptive statistics for all variables. The following variables were very important for answering this 
question: presence of illicit crops, illegal groups, and illegal mining; socioeconomic and infrastructure 
conditions of the municipalities; perception of illicit economic activities and security conditions; 
participation of CBOs in other territorial development programs; and impact of the pandemic on the 
municipality. Additionally, based on administrative data, the team compared CDLO municipalities and 
other municipalities from the same department on indicators related to security conditions, the 
existence of illegal activities, and government actions.95
c. Analysis: These quantitative estimates and analyses were complemented with qualitative data the team 
collected, including interviews and focus groups, which were used to prepare a specific report for this 
evaluation question. Additionally, the team used a geographic approach to prepare maps for visualizing
information on: i) the presence of illicit crops, ii) the type of activity, iii) CDLO program actions, iv) 
educational level, and iv) internet coverage, among other variables, allowing us to enrich the analysis.
EVALUATION QUESTION 2 provided an opportunity to identify and assess CDLO's results in 
strengthening the social and economic capacities of CBOs. One part of this analysis looks at the 
strategies and instruments implemented by CDLO in its process of interaction and relationship building 
with organizations with varying abilities, objectives, and contexts. Other key elements of the analysis are 
related to skills and strategies for administrative management, conflict management, strategic planning, 
strengthening leadership, and relationship building with the public and private sectors. 
a. Sources of Information: The data was collected through interviews, focus groups, surveys of CBO 
members and directors, and data provided by CDLO (Mission-Monitor) based on the evaluation matrix. 
We also used information from the Organizational Performance Index (OPI), provided by CLDO, which 
"measures the integral performance of organizations" in four dimensions: effectiveness, efficiency, 
relevance and sustainability.96 
b. Indicators and Estimates: The evaluation team developed a CBO Capacity Building Index. This is a 
composite index that considers components associated with five capacities: governance, administration, 
planning, physical and human capital, and financial. The Index takes values between 0 and 100. The 
structure of the Index is detailed in Table 18. In the Quantitative Methodology Section, we detailed the 
description of the methodology we used for the composite index. 
95 Details on the estimate types we used can be found in the Quantitative Methodology Section (See page 108). 96 Each of these dimensions consists of two variables: effectiveness (results and organizational states), efficiency (service delivery 
and outreach), relevance (focus population and learning) and sustainability (resources and social capital). The variables are 
measured according to their performance level (in whole numbers from 1 to 4 with 1 being low),
129 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 18. CAPACITY BUILDING INDEX
DIMENSION # INDICATORS WEIGHT SCORE
Governance Does it have a Board of 
Directors?
20% 3: Yes
1: No
Does it have basic 
profiles? 
3: All
2: Some
1: One
Directors meet at least 
once a year and minutes 
are recorded
3: Yes, and minutes are recorded
2: Yes, but minutes are not recorded
1: No
A general meeting is held 
at least once a year, and 
minutes are recorded.
3: Yes, and minutes are recorded
2: Yes, but minutes are not recorded
1: No meetings are held
Administrative Is it registered with the 
Chamber of Commerce? 
20% 3: Yes
1: No
Does it have legal status? 3: Yes 
1: No
Does it have a procedure 
for the acquisition of 
goods or services?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond 
Does it have inventories 
or control systems of its 
property, goods, assets or 
fixed resources?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Planning Has it defined and 
socialized organizational 
principles: mission, vision 
and values?
20% 3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Has it defined and 
socialized the Action Plan? 
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Has it carried out long￾term planning exercises?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 130
TABLE 18. CAPACITY BUILDING INDEX
DIMENSION # INDICATORS WEIGHT SCORE
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Has it carried out design 
and implementation 
exercises for new lines of 
business or services?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Physical and 
Human 
Capital 
Does it have at least one 
physical asset? 
20% 3: Yes, and there has been changes since 2018
2: Yes, and there has been no change since 2018 
1: No 
Does it have specific 
duties for management, 
administrative or 
operational personnel?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Does it have specific 
duties for the 
organization's associates 
who do not have 
managerial, administrative 
or operational positions?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Does it have a policy for 
the election and retention 
of directors and 
associates?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Financial Does it prepare regular 
balance sheet reports?
20% 3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Does it have a budget? 3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Does it have a fundraising 
strategy or plan in place?
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Does it have a business 
plan? 
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
131 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 18. CAPACITY BUILDING INDEX
DIMENSION # INDICATORS WEIGHT SCORE
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Does it have a 
systematized accounting 
system? 
3: Yes, and it updated it less than a year ago, or between 1 and 
3 years ago
2: Yes, and it updated it more than 3 years ago, or Does Not 
Know/Does Not Respond
1: No or Does Not Know/Does Not Respond
Most of its income comes 
from its own revenues
3: Most of its income comes from members or associates and 
from the sale of products or services
2: Most of its income comes from members or associates, from 
the sale of products or services and from credit management
1: Most of its income comes from contributions from public 
entities, CDLO, and other private or cooperating entities
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM, BASED ON CBI LITERATURE
c. Analysis: As a complement of the Capacity Building Index analysis, the evaluation team used descriptive 
statistics on topics including the leadership of CDLO beneficiaries' members (indicator code CDLO-02-
C); CBO members participation in CDLO activities; the importance given by CBOs to strengthening 
activities; existing trust among members; challenges faced by the organizations; members' perceptions of 
their representatives; and CDLO actions to strengthen the organizations. Additionally, the evaluation 
included an analysis of qualitative interview data using the thematic report prepared for this evaluation 
question, and the evaluation team developed regression models to identify the association of capacity 
building with variables such as participation in infrastructure projects, economic activities, and the 
probability of reaching agreements for the commercialization of products. Tables 19 and 20 show the 
results of these regressions.
TABLE 19. REGRESSIONS FOR THE CAPACITY BUILDING INDEX -CBI-. 
LABELS VARIABLES CBI1 GOV2 ADM3 PLA4 PHYHUM5 FIN6
Capacity building of the 
organization's internal 
capabilities
Q215_1 = 1, Yes -1.501
(2.834)
1.926
(2.898)
-5.779
(3.582)
-3.213
(4.119)
-0.213
(4.215)
1.380
(3.466)
Capacity building of 
economic activities 
Q215_2 = 1, Yes 4.335
(2.667)
4.021*
(2.139)
7.296**
(3.657)
0.818
(3.935)
1.831
(3.872)
5.463
(3.543)
Infrastructure 
management 
Q215_3 = 1, Yes 5.974*
(3.098)
4.224
(2.565)
3.864
(4.179)
3.354
(4.207)
7.995*
(4.227)
7.008*
(4.007)
Multi-level Dialogue Q215_45 = 1 3.187
(3.068)
-1.402
(2.716)
3.972
(4.031)
6.283
(4.080)
2.263
(4.700)
2.077
(3.870)
Government Q431_gov = 1 -2.680
(2.671)
-1.578
(2.433)
-1.306
(3.350)
-1.222
(3.935)
-7.105*
(4.074)
-0.575
(3.303)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 132
TABLE 19. REGRESSIONS FOR THE CAPACITY BUILDING INDEX -CBI-. 
LABELS VARIABLES CBI1 GOV2 ADM3 PLA4 PHYHUM5 FIN6
Other organizations 
and boards
Q431_othboa -4.673
(2.936)
-1.897
(2.922)
-6.145*
(3.703)
0.708
(4.311)
-5.017
(4.589)
-7.982**
(3.707)
Private sector Q431_priv 0.872
(3.371)
-0.928
(3.465)
3.904
(4.341)
4.936
(4.568)
-2.058
(5.051)
-2.379
(4.394)
Cooperative Sector Q431_coop 6.256**
(2.927)
3.277
(2.706)
3.496
(3.797)
5.828
(4.558)
9.381**
(4.210)
5.426
(3.917)
CDLO Q431_cdlo 6.682**
(3.286)
6.362**
(3.202)
9.904**
(4.205)
11.93**
(4.701)
0.529
(4.764)
1.268
(3.831)
Type of organization – 
Other 
I Type = 2, Other 15.20** -1.435 11.75** 29.50** 8.475 15.94**
(4.649) (4.947) (5.626) (6.967) (6.640) (5.506)
Type of organization - 
Producer/commercial 
companies
I Type = 3 
Producer/
commercial
11.42**
(3.912)
2.691
(3.826)
16.84**
(4.479)
15.46**
(6.577)
-2.265
(5.627)
16.49**
(5.110)
Age of the organization age_org 0.136
(0.102)
0.250**
(0.0859)
0.153
(0.121)
-0.0185
(0.158)
-0.0396
(0.154)
0.295**
(0.122)
Percentage of active 
members
% Active/Total 0.0940
(0.0662)
0.115
(0.0748)
0.147*
(0.0832)
0.0116
(0.0859)
0.0509
(0.0923)
0.104
(0.0801)
Size of the organization 
(Number of members)
Q206_1 0.0349**
(0.0141)
0.0200*
(0.0105)
0.0637**
(0.0119)
0.0237
(0.0192)
0.0333
(0.0218)
0.0127
(0.0129)
Percentage of female 
members
Q207_2 0.0409
(0.0697)
0.0344
(0.0695)
0.0726
(0.0990)
-0.00235
(0.0855)
0.0266
(0.0921)
0.0510
(0.0784)
Percentage of members 
with ethnic identity 
% Added ethnic 
affiliation -0.0406
(0.0316)
-0.0953**
(0.0289)
-0.00660
(0.0409)
-0.0194
(0.0426)
0.0133
(0.0467)
-0.0885**
(0.0378)
Percentage of young 
members
Q209 -0.0139*
(0.00832)
-0.0322**
(0.00833)
0.0326**
(0.0142)
-0.0243*
(0.0126)
-0.0387**
(0.0136)
-0.00450
(0.0100)
REGION = 1, NORTH REGION = 1, 
NORTH
8.468**
(3.704)
4.797*
(2.650)
10.53**
(4.282)
12.31*
(6.441)
7.309
(5.451)
2.248
(5.760)
REGION = 3, SOUTH REGION = 3, 
SOUTH
-7.418**
(3.546)
-3.897
(3.188)
-11.66**
(4.634)
-3.610
(4.736)
-13.41**
(5.086)
0.0720
(3.729)
Intercept Constant 33.61**
(7.899)
66.84**
(9.359)
27.31**
(9.796)
33.22**
(11.17)
53.08**
(11.15)
29.10**
(9.593)
Observations 238 238 238 238 238 238
133 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 19. REGRESSIONS FOR THE CAPACITY BUILDING INDEX -CBI-. 
LABELS VARIABLES CBI1 GOV2 ADM3 PLA4 PHYHUM5 FIN6
 R-squared 0.244 0.258 0.256 0.237 0.116 0.165
Note: Those who did not receive support are 
excluded(Q431)
Robust standard errors in 
parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
1CBI: Capacity Building Index
2GOV: Governance Capacity
3ADM: Management Capacity
4PLA: Planning Capacity
5PHYHUM: Physical and Human Capital Capacity
6FIN: Financial Capacity
TABLE 20. REGRESSION FOR CBO ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS 
LABEL VARIABLES # ECONOMIC 
AGREEMENTS TOTAL
Capacity building of the organization's 
internal capabilities
Q215_1 = 1, Yes 0.449***
(0.116)
Capacity building of economic activities Q215_2 = 1, Yes 1.238
(0.517)
Infrastructure management Q215_3 = 1, Yes 2.687**
(1.068)
Multi-level Dialogue Q215_45 0.558
(0.272)
# Types of support received (1, 4 or 5) # Types of support received (1, 4 or 5) 1.687
(0.568)
Government Received government support for 508:1,4 or 
5 
1.176
(0.417)
Other organizations and boards Received support from Boards/Other CBOs 
for 508:1,4 or 5
1.170
(0.453)
Private sector Received support from private sector for 
508:1,4 or 5
1.294
(0.403)
Cooperative Sector Received support from cooperative sector 
for 508:1,4 or 5
0.961
(0.344)
CDLO Received support from CDLO for 508:1,4 or 
5 
1.004
(0.487)
Type of organization - Other I Type = 2, Other 5.703
(8.515)
Type of organization - 
Producer/commercial companies
I Type = 3 Producer/commercial 5.701
(8.712)
Age of the organization Age org 0.999
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 134
TABLE 20. REGRESSION FOR CBO ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS 
LABEL VARIABLES # ECONOMIC 
AGREEMENTS TOTAL
(0.0388)
Percentage of active members % Active/Total 0.996
(0.00682)
Size of the organization (Number of 
members)
Q206_1 1.001
(0.00139)
Percentage of female members Q207_2 1.004
(0.00574)
Percentage of members with ethnic 
identity
% Added ethnic affiliation 0.989**
(0.00426)
Percentage of young members Q209 1.011**
(0.00531)
Main Activity -NonTraditionalEco main_clustered2 = 2, econNOtradcreat 2.540**
(0.996)
Main Activity -InfrastructureEco main_clustered2 = 3, infraeco 0.872
(0.651)
REGION = 1, NORTH REGION = 1, NORTH 1.529
(0.731)
REGION = 3, SOUTH REGION = 3, SOUTH 0.858
(0.360)
Intercept Constant 0.0914
(0.146)
 Observations 106
Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
EVALUATION QUESTION 3 was designed to examine the impact that the CDLO Activity has had on 
the creation or strengthening of legal economic ecosystems. CDLO supports initiatives in traditional and 
non-traditional economies to encourage legal economic processes that contribute to local economic 
growth through interactions between various social and economic actors. Within this framework, 
elements such as the diversification of productive activities, innovation in processes and products, 
valuation of local assets, and increased access to new markets for local products are key.
a. Sources of Information and Quantitative Analysis: The quantitative analysis was supported by descriptive 
statistics of survey variables such as: productive activities; CBO members and income generation; 
perception of the economic situation; and support received. CDLO provided data on sales activities and 
135 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
commercial partnerships. As a complement of this analysis, the evaluation team used regression models 
to find variables associated with the capacity building of economic activities using CBOs establishment of 
economic agreements as a proxy variable. Table 21 and 22 show the results of these regressions.
b. Sources of Information and Qualitative Analysis: The qualitative analysis included the use of the thematic 
and territorial reports of the coding of the focus group-interviews, the analytical report for this question 
and the cooccurrence and word cloud matrices (these instruments of visualization and analysis are 
detailed in Qualitative Methodology Section below).
TABLE 21. REGRESSION FOR ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CBOS 
LABEL VARIABLES # COMMUNITY 
BASE
Capacity building of the organization's internal 
capabilities
Q215_1 = 1, Yes 4.432**
(3.156)
Capacity building of economic activities Q215_2 = 1, Yes 0.153*
(0.158)
Infrastructure management Q215_3 = 1, Yes 3.273**
(1.064)
Multi-level Dialogue Q215_45 0.389**
(0.109)
# Types of support received (1, 4 or 5) # Types of support received (1, 4 or 5) 0.839
(0.311)
Government Received government support for 508:1,4 or 5 0.280
(0.349)
Other organizations and boards Received support from Boards/OtherCBOs for 
508:1,4 or 5
0.406
(0.225)
Private sector Received support from private sector for 508:1,4 
or 5
0.836
(0.207)
Cooperative Sector Received support from cooperative sector for 
508:1,4 or 5
0.411
(0.262)
CDLO Received support from CDLO for 508:1,4 or 5 0.829
(0.367)
Type of organization – Other I Type = 2, Other 0.0203*
(0.0457)
Type of organization - Producer/commercial 
companies
I Type = 3 Producer/commercial 0.0685*
(0.0993)
Age of the organization Age org 0.867**
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 136
TABLE 21. REGRESSION FOR ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS BETWEEN CBOS 
LABEL VARIABLES # COMMUNITY 
BASE
(0.0463)
Percentage of active members % Active/Total 0.999
(0.00614)
Size of the organization (Number of members) Q206_1 1.003*
(0.00192)
Percentage of female members Q207_2 1.048*
(0.0272)
Percentage of members with ethnic identity % Added ethnic affiliation 0.969**
(0.00774)
Percentage of young members Q209 1.011
(0.0104)
Main Activity -NonTraditionalEco Main_clustered = 2, NonTradEco 1.353
(0.513)
Main Activity -InfrastructureEco main_clustered2 = 4, infraeco 0.561*
(0.189)
REGION = 1, NORTH REGION = 1, NORTH 64.73**
(107.5)
REGION = 3, SOUTH REGION = 3, SOUTH 0.834
(0.807)
Intercept Constant 98.77**
(145.8)
 Observations 26
Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
TABLE 22. REGRESSION FOR CBO ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS 
LABEL VARIABLES # ECONOMIC 
AGREEMENTS TOTAL
Capacity building of the organization's internal 
capabilities
Q215_1 = 1, Yes 0.912
(0.221)
Capacity building of economic activities Q215_2 = 1, Yes 0.876
(0.341)
Infrastructure management Q215_3 = 1, Yes 1.377
137 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 22. REGRESSION FOR CBO ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS 
LABEL VARIABLES # ECONOMIC 
AGREEMENTS TOTAL
(0.578)
Multi-level Dialogue Q215_45 0.449**
(0.165)
Economic agreements with private companies Q510_1_recode 3.756**
(1.477)
Economic agreements with public entities Q510_2_recode 1.921
(1.207)
Economic agreements with other community￾based organizations
Q510_3_recode 3.161**
(0.917)
# Types of support received (1, 4 or 5) # Types of support received (1, 4 or 5) 1.977**
(0.491)
Government Received government support for 508:1,4 or 5 1.368
(0.503)
Other organizations and boards Received support from Boards/OtherCBOs for 
508:1,4 or 5
1.006
(0.386)
Private sector Received support from the private sector for 
508:1,4 or 5
1.377
(0.446)
Cooperative Sector Received support from cooperative sector for 
508:1,4 or 5
0.555*
(0.195)
CDLO Received support from CDLO for 508:1,4 or 5 1.044
(0.364)
Type of organization – Other I Type = 2, Other 3.042
(3.003)
Type of organization - Producer/commercial 
companies
I Type = 3 Producer/commercial 2.249
(2.201)
Age of the organization age_org 1.011
(0.0264)
Percentage of active members % Active/Total 0.995
(0.00755)
Size of the organization (Number of members) Q206_1 1.000
(0.00116)
Percentage of female members Q207_2 1.010*
(0.00554)
Percentage of members with ethnic identity % Added ethnic affiliation 0.990**
(0.00385)
Percentage of young members Q209 1.004
(0.00551)
Main Activity -NonTraditionalEco Main_clustered = 2, NonTradEco 2.688**
(1.307)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 138
TABLE 22. REGRESSION FOR CBO ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS 
LABEL VARIABLES # ECONOMIC 
AGREEMENTS TOTAL
Main Activity -InfrastructureEco main_clustered2 = 4, infraeco 0.307*
(0.213)
REGION = 1, NORTH REGION = 1, NORTH 1.927*
(0.741)
REGION = 3, SOUTH REGION = 3, SOUTH 1.024
(0.386)
Intercept Constant 0.0355**
(0.0492)
Observations 106
Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
EVALUATION QUESTION 4 provides a guide to analyze the effectiveness of the CDLO model for the 
provision of public and social goods and services. To answer this evaluation question, the evaluation 
team analyzed the extent to which the CDLO Activity contributed to expanding coverage and increasing 
access to services, as well as communities’ participation in planning and executing community public 
works developed in coordination with local governments and national agencies. For this analysis, it was 
important to seek out the opinions of communities and leaders who have participated in these 
processes. These local actors were consulted through interviews, focus groups, social mapping, and 
ethnographic tours.
a. Sources of Information and Qualitative Analysis: The evaluation team developed spatial analysis, using 
cartography that helped to identify: i) the presence of illicit crops, ii) type of activity, and iii) actions 
implemented by CDLO. To understand CBO members’ and directors’ perceptions regarding priority 
challenges for economic development, word clouds were also generated. 
b. Sources of Information and Quantitative Analysis: The quantitative component included descriptive 
statistics of CDLO indicators and surveys such as: percentage of resources invested by type of 
infrastructure and financing actor; coverage of infrastructure investments across municipalities; access to 
public services (CDLO-04-C); CDLO participation in the improvement of these services; participation of 
CBOs in infrastructure projects; leverage and mobilization of resources from CDLO activities; and 
reduction in travel times. Within the social mapping, the latter was compared with the beneficiaries' 
perceptions. We developed maps identifying the relationship between the reduction in travel times and 
access to market, and connection points. 
EVALUATION QUESTION 5 highlights CDLO's efforts to promote coordinated work between a 
broad set of actors focused on territorial development, specifically inquiring about the effectiveness of 
multi-level dialogue mechanisms in promoting participation and community influence in public decision￾making. To address this question, the evaluation team analyzed processes related to communications 
strategies for development, citizen participation and accountability, empowerment, and new leadership, 
139 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
as well as the generation and improvement of collective action networks focused on territorial 
development. The Activity considers the amount of coordination and cooperation between social, 
public, and private actors to be a determining factor in the scope and windows of opportunity of multi￾level dialogues. 
a. Sources of Information and Qualitative Analysis: With these categories and variables in mind, the 
evaluation team analyzed and triangulated data from different sources, using several methodologies. This 
analysis used mainly qualitative research methods, especially participatory workshops with local 
community organizations with which CDLO has worked, and interviews with diverse actors. 
b. Maps and Networks Analysis: With the triangulation of this data, the evaluation team prepared maps of 
municipalities where CDLO operates to visualize the type of activities carried out; the density of coca 
cultivation, and the concentration of CDLO actions. These maps, together with a network analysis 
(which showed the relationship between CBOs and the thematic report prepared for this question), 
enabled the evaluation team to characterize the multi-level dialogue that CDLO promoted. The 
Quantitative Methodology section details the methodology we used for the construction of the 
networks. The Spatial Analysis section shows the instruments we used to produce maps.
c. Sources of Information and Quantitative Analysis: We applied quantitative techniques, mainly descriptive 
statistics, using the variables from the surveys such as: perception of CBOs' capacities to interact with 
the private sector, CBOs' level of trust in institutions, and participation in dialogue spaces for the 
development of the municipality, among others.
EVALUATION QUESTION 6 seeks to establish the effectiveness of CDLO's contribution to public 
policy implementation processes at the territorial level. For this, the evaluation team revised the 
Activity's specific contribution to GOC public policy related to the planning, design, and implementation 
of territorial development strategies, particularly their execution in the geographic corridors where 
CDLO interacts with government programs such as PDET, PATR, PNIS, and PISDA.
a. Sources of Information and Analysis: With these categories and variables in mind, the evaluation team
analyzed and integrated data from different sources, applying several methodologies. To address this 
question from a qualitative approach, we used co-occurrence matrices, the analytical report of the 
question along with the thematic and territorial reports resulting from the coding process, which 
included information from interviews and focus groups. The quantitative component used descriptive 
statistics of variables including the participation of CBOs in PDET or ART processes, and in discussion 
forums for the development of the municipality.
QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY 
This qualitative approach covers all CDLO stakeholders, whereas the quantitative approach only focuses 
on the direct beneficiaries (CBOs). This multi-actor framework for the qualitative approach of this 
evaluation allowed us to analyze the value that CDLO generates for different stakeholders (value 
mapping), with insights into the ways in which different actors perceive, interpret, and assess CDLO 
Activity.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 140
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
Qualitative methods comprise a wide spectrum of research approaches and techniques from the social 
sciences: ethnography, in-depth interviews, focus groups, life stories, and case studies among others.97
The common denominator linking these diverse approaches is a search for explanations arising from the 
ways that people perceive their social reality. Qualitative methods are used to investigate the meanings 
and shared codes that subjects use to explain and understand their reality, the relationships they hold 
between themselves, their practices, and the institutions that surround them.98
Qualitative research methods are based on the experiences and meanings of specific men and women, 
with one characteristic consistently emphasized: the importance of context. This emphasis is based on 
the recognition that all individuals and institutions are situated in a particular historical, social, and 
cultural context. Qualitative methods have four fundamental characteristics that should always be 
considered:99
• Recognition of the importance of diversity (as a plurality of contexts and perspectives)
• Recognition of the importance of the context and human actions
• Respect for the participant (insofar as their narrative is important) and
• Change of the researcher-participant relationship
Accordingly, the answers that result from qualitative research are interpretations of reality. Under an 
analytical methodology based on interpretive phenomenology, such an approach is hermeneutic,100 which 
means that it starts from a socially constructed context to give reasons for and respond to the why of 
people's actions, symbols, and behaviors.101
Qualitative research methods and instruments are a starting point to address a wide range of topics and 
research problems. Similarly, they allow for flexibility in the research process, as the research questions 
can be adapted to the information needs and characteristics of the reality that the researchers seek to 
document. Additionally, qualitative instruments may be combined or used to complement and expand 
the scope of quantitative research, since qualitative data can often be used to explain quantitative 
results.102
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
Considering the purposes of this evaluation, as well as the above information on the nature and 
characteristics of qualitative methods, the evaluation team designed four instruments to collect accurate 
data about the ways in which different actors perceive, interpret, and evaluate CDLO Activity. Thus, the 
evaluation team was interested in identifying the opinions, stories, and meanings that people in different 
roles in the Activity construct around the main topics of interest of this evaluation. In this section we 
97 Flick, U. (2018 a). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage. 98 Geertz, C. (1980). La interpretación de las culturas. Barcelona: Gedisa and Geertz, C. (1984). Conocimiento local. Barcelona:
Paidós. 
99 Taylor, J. y Bogdan, R. (1998). Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación. Barcelona: Paidós. 100 Fuster Guillen, D. E. (2019). Investigación cualitativa: Método fenomenológico hermenéutico. Propósitos y representaciones, 
7(1), 201-229. 101 Corbin, J. y Strauss, A. (2012). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia. 102 Flick, U. (2018 b). Doing triangulation and mixed methods. London: Sage.
141 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
describe the purpose and scope of each technique and Annex V, Qualitative Component Instruments 
Section shows the instruments we developed for four of them. 
1. FOCUS GROUPS are a technique is used for a series of selected participants discuss topics or social 
facts to gather information based on different points of view and opinions regarding the subject of 
research. To ensure a wide spectrum of perspectives and points of view, participants were carefully 
selected according to the relationship they have had with CDLO Activity.103 Focus groups had 
participants from different CBOs, in the interest of drawing on individual understanding and experience 
to derive a common knowledge about the Activity, as well as its impact on the population and 
geographic corridor.
2. SOCIAL CARTOGRAPHY is a qualitative geographic instrument used to collectively construct a 
representation of a territory, its population, and the activities that take place within.104 For this 
evaluation, the social cartography was conducted after the focus group interview. Participants were 
divided into groups according to the activity linking them to CDLO: infrastructure projects, producer 
associations, and cultural and communications collectives. After being given a map of the geographic 
corridor, each group used visual elements to depict the activities that have been carried out and their 
variation over time. By the end of the activity, each group presented and explained their map. 
3. SEMI – STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS are a method that seeks to understand the meaning of the 
main themes of the evaluation through qualitative knowledge expressed in common language and 
through words, not numbers. While a semi-structured interview does not aim to quantify knowledge, it 
does focus on answering research questions as accurately as possible, at the same time leaving space for 
new issues that were not initially considered to emerge. Participants in these interviews were 
encouraged to describe as accurately as possible their experience in the CDLO Activity, depending on 
their role: public officials, CBOs directors linked to traditional and non-traditional economic activities, 
JACs involved in infrastructure projects, beneficiaries in communication for development initiatives, 
commercial partners, and territorial links of CDLO Activity.
4. ETHNOGRAPHIC TOURS: Based on the information collected from the focus groups and social 
cartography, an ethnographic tour route through the region was integrated to the qualitative data and 
the spatial analysis methodology.105 To observe the progress of the CDLO Activity in the field, the 
evaluation team conducted ethnographic interviews as a component of the interviews with CBO 
directors or representatives. 
QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS 
The methodological approach to analyzing qualitative data began with generating an initial proposal for 
categorization according to the interpretive phenomenological analysis.106 Once the data was collected 
and transcribed, it was registered in the initial categories along with new categories that emerged from 
the empirical material or complement the initial categories. Once all categories were organized in this 
103 Krueger, R. (1998 a) Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications and Krueger, R. (1998b) Involving 
community members in focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
104 Banks, M. (2018) Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. 105 Coffey, A. (2018). London: Sage Publications; Banks, M. (2018) Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage 
Publications and Spradley, J (1980) Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Publications.
106 Gibbs, G. (2018) Analyzing qualitative data. Londres: Sage.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 142
deductive-inductive iterated process, the empirical material (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies, 
and case studies) was encoded using NVivo Release 12 software. The analytical lines were then created, 
and the results were interpreted.107
A brief description of the main steps is shown as follows:
1. CODING is part of the overall analysis process, but it is separated from the analysis itself. Proper 
coding makes the data handling process more efficient; information search faster and more organized; 
and allows to pinpoint similarities, differences, patterns, and anomalies. Proper coding also makes it 
easier to identify emergent categories. Emergent categories are new thematic groups or variables of 
analysis that are revealed from the collected empirical material. Coding was conducted with the 
categories and emergent codes that arose after the fieldwork was completed.108 We used two types of 
coding for CDLO:
• Structural coding: segments of information that refer to the main categories and sub-categories of 
analysis in the consistency matrix, which seek to accurately answer each research question.
• Cross-sectional coding: a series of codes that overlap with structural codes, allowing greater 
segmentation of information. According to the logical framework of the evaluation, we chose four 
cross-sectional codes:
− Value captured: benefits that CDLO activities have had on beneficiaries and related interest 
groups.
− Lost value: assets, capacities, or resources that have not been properly exploited.
− Destroyed value: negative externalities that the activity has had, such as social or environmental 
effects that generate indirect costs that are usually invisible.
− Opportunity value: novel and creative solutions to old problems, seeking sustainability over time 
and positive effects on communities.
Table 23 shows the 19 categories of analysis that the evaluation team established (4 cross-cutting, 14 
thematic, and 1 synthesis), their definitions, as well as specific examples of verbatim from participants in 
the evaluation activities for each of the questions.
107 Silver, C. (2007) Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. London: Sage Publications. 108 Saldaña, J. (2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications.
143 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 23. CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS WITH VERBATIM EXAMPLES FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION
COMPONENT / 
QUESTION
CATEGORY OF 
ANALYSIS 
DEFINITION SAMPLE/VERBATIM
[INTERVIEW 1 (…) GF (…) INTERVIEW 2 (…) MAPPING 1 (…) GF 3].
Transversals Captured value Benefits generated by CDLO in each organization 
(stakeholder) or in its action ecosystem. 
"JACs have become executors of INFRASTRUCTURE and we have had better 
relations with other villages (...) the collection center has been of great help 
because it improves the capacity of our association (...) thanks to the trainings of 
CDLO we have improved our knowledge."
Lost Value Inefficiencies in CDLO's interactions with other 
organizations. Missed opportunities that do not 
allow organizations/ecosystems to improve the 
situation of the beneficiaries. Lost value is 
associated with perceptions of what could 
be/could have been better. It can be associated 
with bottlenecks (e.g.,2 Lack of capacities, low 
follow-up of activities/tasks, lack of a process 
articulating agent).
"The mayor's office did not participate in the construction of the treadplate. They 
promised to lend us the machinery or contribute with gasoline and they never 
showed up again (...) we still haven't found anyone to take care of the 
transportation of cocoa (...) we haven't been able to sell much in the last year 
because of COVID and/or the public order situation (...) we built the road, but as a 
community organization we still have a lot of problems. (...) from ART we do not 
have the capacity to financially coordinate the projects."
Destroyed Value Organizations' interactions with CDLO that are 
negatively evaluated. It is associated with 
reputational risks or CDLO actions that generate 
conflicts between organizations or individuals.
"CDLO broke the promise to fund the community kitchen After having agreed 
that we would provide the labor and they would provide the materials, they came 
out with the story that it was no longer possible (...) in the last few months Roboti 
SAS has been more concerned about the reports they have to give to you. We are 
very confused within the organization, and they don't listen when I tell them what 
we need. They are concerned about getting their reports right. It's been quite 
some time since I've spoken to the territorial competence."
Recommendations 
and Windows of 
Opportunity => 
New opportunities 
for generation of 
value
Organizations’ Proposals for the optimization of 
processes, improvement of people's living 
conditions, or new forms of action of the 
organizations. This section may include cases or 
experiences that are considered successful in 
terms of replicability, scalability, 
comprehensiveness and sustainability.
“It would be good that CDLO takes part in the Territorial Innovation Roundtables 
(...) it is very good that they have helped us with the treadplate, but JAC still needs 
to be strengthened as an organization (...) we understand that, culturally, the sales 
agreements may vary due to market conditions, but it would be worthwhile to 
honor them. Let’s see in the next cultivation we buy their production (...)we are 
thinking about marketing the chontaduro fruit, but the market needs processed 
products (...) the private sector could play a more active role through technical 
assistance or other types of training (...) thanks to those meetings, we are thinking 
of a regional chontaduro roundtable that would include producers from Chocó, 
Cauca and Putumayo".
Abstract - 
Summary
Descriptions or analysis made by 
interviewer/facilitator
"So, what you are pointing out is that the illicit economies have not completely 
disappeared from this area, and that this situation is largely due to a failure to 
comply with the agreements between the national government and the 
communities. Similarly, you consider that CDLO has not succeeded in establishing 
the required communication with the Mayor's Office or the Governor's Office for 
establishing agreements with the municipal or regional public administration. From 
producer organizations’ point of view, public order is a determining factor for the 
commercialization processes or the access of tourists to this region of the country
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 144
TABLE 23. CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS WITH VERBATIM EXAMPLES FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION
COMPONENT / 
QUESTION
CATEGORY OF 
ANALYSIS 
DEFINITION SAMPLE/VERBATIM
[INTERVIEW 1 (…) GF (…) INTERVIEW 2 (…) MAPPING 1 (…) GF 3].
(...) From their perspective, CDLO could contribute in the development of 
information systems that helps to know the volumes and the times of greatest 
production and harvest, so we can know how many hectares to cultivate in January 
or to whom they will sell 40% of the total production of their association (...) it 
would be worthwhile then to look for ways in which the ART is better articulated 
with the ADR".
Q1 Context Public Safety, Illicit 
Economies, 
Peacebuilding and 
Post-Conflict 
Violence
Perceptions of the feeling of insecurity and its 
effects in daily life or CDLO activities. Challenges 
and expectations related to peacebuilding after 
the Peace Agreement between FARC and GOG.
“The situation has improved a lot. We can go out again after 6pm and we have 
even thrown street parties (...) after the peace agreement there is more optimism 
among people, and tourism is seen as a good source of income for us here in the 
municipality (...) although there is progress here the groups continue to put 
pressure (...) young people are still at risk of being tempted by the idea of easy 
money (...) we are the municipality with the highest number of deaths per 100 
inhabitants in Colombia (...) here off the record, I have been told that young 
people are charging to let products move (...) here there the option of returning to 
the illegal economies is always open. In the end we know that we go down with a 
small backpack, and you don't need trucks or roads for that (...) when you need 
money, you go and barequea (to extract gold illegally) for a few hours and you get 
at least for a loaf of bread and a few eggs”.
Institutional Offer 
Associated with 
the Peace 
Agreement 
Political 
Participation 
Descriptions and/or evaluations of public and/or 
international cooperation programs associated 
with the Peace Agreement (PDET, PART, PNIS, 
Development Plans & Swiss/German/American 
Cooperation). The institutional offer has to do 
with spaces for political participation, satisfaction 
of social demands through the action of social 
and political organizations (JACs, Producers, 
Political Parties).
"We were very active in the rural core from the PDTET. (...) PNIS was a great 
illusion, but we still haven't achieved short-term agricultural projects. We continue 
on the food security (...) the arrival of CDLO has been great because it was related 
to programs such as Colombia Responde and other USAID programs (...) in 2017 
GIZ trained us on life plans and business plans (...) we managed to incorporate the 
tourism sector in the municipal development plan (...) the government has not 
been super involved in these projects (...) during the last few years I've seen that 
over time people trust the institutions more each time. From ART we have been 
contributing to infrastructure and productive projects hand in hand with the 
Ministry of Agriculture (...) having worked with Colombia Responde was great 
because then we already had capabilities and we were formalized). 
COVID-19 Effects Changes at territorial or organizational level as a 
result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
"COVID made us lose a lot of potential because we could not produce or sell 
products as we had planned (...) in spite of COVID we were able to organize 
ourselves and finish the work in 4 months (...) Since we could not go to the 
territory we worked on virtual platforms (...) for example, we trained (...) we made 
ETEs [Territorial Evaluation Spaces] virtual and we managed to get people 
connected in spite of all the connectivity problems these areas have."
Q2 Capacity 
Building
CDLO Strategy - Selection and 
Interaction with 
Perceptions and assessments on beneficiary 
selection procedures (Relevance, Inclusion, 
"I think the approach of the program is very good. They are based on accurate 
diagnoses of the territory, and they choose organizations with potential or 
previous experience (...) Yes! I think they are good allies and that is why we 
145 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 23. CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS WITH VERBATIM EXAMPLES FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION
COMPONENT / 
QUESTION
CATEGORY OF 
ANALYSIS 
DEFINITION SAMPLE/VERBATIM
[INTERVIEW 1 (…) GF (…) INTERVIEW 2 (…) MAPPING 1 (…) GF 3].
beneficiaries, 
partners and 
public/private 
sector. 
CoCreation) and CDLO strategic partners. 
Assessments on the selection, management, and 
action model focused on the capacity building of 
the organizations, their coordination and 
cooperation, and changing the perceptions of the 
public and private sector.
continue to do business with them (...) for us, what’s important is that the business 
is profitable. If we can sell the tourism plans, and for that we need the help of a 
local operator, we will certainly hire them (...) the way in which we have 
participated with them has been great, because we have learned a lot about civil 
engineering and we have become more capable of offering services to the mayor's 
office or to any company that seeks road improvements (...) we still need to 
overcome this dependence on outside financing to be part of (...) CDLO's help 
made our organization emerge again and now we are 40 associates (...) After 
CDLO, it seems that people are more interested in joining the organization. Now 
we're kind of more empowered and organized."
Organizational 
Capabilities => 
Administrative 
Strengthening, 
Financial 
Management, 
Human Resources 
Strengthening. 
Perceptions of changes in the administrative, 
financial, and operational capacity of organizations 
that benefit from CDLO. 
“We received financial and accounting training from CDLO, and it helped us to 
understand better what is being formalized about” DIAN and the Chamber of 
Commerce, for example. They also helped us with a program to improve our 
accounting (...) They helped us understand income and expenses. We used to do 
that in a notebook and now we are more organized."
Social and 
Community 
Management 
Assessments on organizational changes or 
challenges related to the CDLO intervention (i.e., 
associative skills, conflict management, generation 
or changes in shared values of reality, 
interpersonal trust, trust in institutions).
"Thanks to this experience with CDLO, we believe again i a future with a legal 
economy (...) we women have become more involved in local economic issues 
with the honey/silversmithing project (...) we have returned to traditional 
knowledge and ancestral customs (...) food, and these new abilities have given the 
territory a new vision of our future, far from the war (...) thanks to cocoa we 
became more supportive and we experience less violence, and among neighbors 
we help each other more."
Q3 Economic 
Development 
Capacity building 
of traditional 
economies and 
diversification of 
productive 
activities.
Assessments on the contribution of CDLO and 
other actors (public/private) in the strengthening 
or improvement of traditional and/or non￾traditional economic activities. Assessments on 
the contribution of CDLO to the development of 
new productive activities in intervention areas. 
"In the work we do with communities and commercial partners, we have focused 
much of our efforts on strengthening the productive capacity of producer 
organizations (...) we have received support from CDLO to improve the tourism 
services we offer. Before, we were not aware of the importance of having a good 
gastronomic offer or of being trained in first aid (...) this honey business is 
becoming a new way of earning a living. With the help of CDLO, we have learned 
more about bees (...) the company that has been with us belongs to people who 
know a lot about tourism and bird watching (...) we will receive technical 
assistance from AUNAP. They will show us how to make the fry eat animal food 
more efficiently so that we don't spend all our money just feeding them. You know 
that this also requires water treatment (...) there are technologies that are not the 
most suitable for these regions. They have worked in countries like India or 
Pakistan, but they didn't work here."
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 146
TABLE 23. CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS WITH VERBATIM EXAMPLES FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION
COMPONENT / 
QUESTION
CATEGORY OF 
ANALYSIS 
DEFINITION SAMPLE/VERBATIM
[INTERVIEW 1 (…) GF (…) INTERVIEW 2 (…) MAPPING 1 (…) GF 3].
Public and private 
sectors linkage to 
CDLO activities
Assessments on the interaction of the public and 
private sectors with CDLO Activities aimed at 
changing the economic environment of their area 
of intervention. 
"The private sector hasn't been very interested in taking part in the development 
of communities (...) we highly value this partnership with CDLO program, because 
it has allowed us to start working in areas where normally we as a compensation 
fund didn't work (...) we have been aware of what CDLO has been doing here in 
the municipality. We have tried to help them as much as we can because, you 
know, in these municipalities there are plenty of needs (...) Colanta is already 
buying milk and organic cassava waste from us. They said that they were going to 
give us loans from their bank (...) I do think that the government needs to get 
closer to these communities. We feel left behind, and if it weren't for you, we 
would still have this road flooded."
Development of 
new products, new 
markets, and 
business and 
environmental 
sustainability. 
Assessments on aspects that have promoted the 
development of new productive and business 
units. Perceptions of factors that limit business 
development, business/organizational revenue 
growth, and of bottlenecks that jeopardize 
business or environmental sustainability. 
Innovations developed by CBOs with the purpose 
of improving their products or production and 
business processes.
"This fish farming has become a new income opportunity, but marketing is still not 
clear (...) in this chontaduro business, we have had great progress in recent years, 
but intermediaries are still keeping most of the profit. We are selling so as not to 
lose so much of the harvest (...) we have been working hard on the roads and 
infrastructure for adventure tourism, but if this municipality continues to be known 
for being a “red zone” [critical level of risk], very few tourists will come (...) the 
market is asking for processed products. We have been exploring the 
transformation of the pulp into candy or energy drinks but the supplier still doesn't 
have the capacity to carry out this transformation and we are marketers (...) we 
have tried to get more people into the tourism market, but to be able to access 
the training SENA gives, they have to have completed at least 9th grade, and that 
means many people who want to participate are left out (....) we are interested in 
changing the boats, but it is expensive. National Parks and CorMacarena gave us a 
time limit until 2022. We are 60 associates and so far, we’ve only been able to 
replace 5 vessels. The operators who want to do tourism on the river depend on 
us, and we depend on them (...) the materials for the boats are in the forest. This 
has some effects in terms of deforestation, but for us it is less expensive than 
fiberglass (...) you know that here we all can perform artisanal mining, and when 
there is no money for the day, we go in search of gold grains, even if it means using 
mercury".
Q4 Provision of 
goods and 
services
Community-Based 
Organizations 
(CBOs), 
Productive 
infrastructure, and 
Public social 
infrastructure 
Assessments on changes and processes of citizen 
participation regarding the definition of priorities 
associated with infrastructure of public goods for 
community use (tertiary roads, improvements or 
expansions). Perceptions and assessments on 
changes/benefits created by public social 
infrastructure (education, health, culture, 
recreation and sports).
"The recollection center will allow us to store the production of all the associates 
and that will make it easier for us to commercialize (...) For now, we need 
machinery for cocoa processing, and more knowledge to treat the cocoa that 
comes to us as pulp (...) With these new roads, the infrastructure of the 
municipality is increased and with that we can continue to do mountain-biking 
competitions, and tourists take less time to complete tour route (...) The 
improvement of the road allowed the JACs to define jointly where to put the
treadplate or sewers (...) the allocation of the aid of the CDM for the construction 
of the new roads will make it easier to commercialize cocoa (...). ) the allocation of 
CDLO's aid at the beginning caused problems with people from other villages, but 
in the end we were able to reach an agreement (...) thanks to this road
147 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 23. CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS WITH VERBATIM EXAMPLES FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION
COMPONENT / 
QUESTION
CATEGORY OF 
ANALYSIS 
DEFINITION SAMPLE/VERBATIM
[INTERVIEW 1 (…) GF (…) INTERVIEW 2 (…) MAPPING 1 (…) GF 3].
improvement now the motorcycle charges less, ambulances arrive and they even 
fix our electricity problems faster (...) the army has been able to reach areas they 
didn't reach before (...) now I can carry more milk in my car (...). (...) now I can 
load more milk in the truck because of this expansion, and land prices have gone 
up because of the quality of the road (...) the library is now epicenter of the 
community, where people learn and where the important decisions of the 
community are made (...) of course, travel times have improved. Before it took me 
an hour and now we get there in half an hour (...) thanks to these sewers, the road 
no longer floods in winter and the cars don't get stuck in there (...) now 
motorcycles and cars cross through here (...) the agreement includes that we are 
going to do the maintenance of the road, and since we built it we are going to take 
much better care of it so that it will last at least 20 years (...) although it’s very 
beautiful and very necessary, the usage of the roads still depends on public order 
and the rules of the armed groups."
CDLO, CBO and 
GOC 
Coordination 
(territorial/national 
governments)
Descriptions or assessments of the interactions 
of community-based organizations (CBOs) with 
the municipal government, departmental 
government, and national government in the 
framework of the provision of public goods and 
services. Assessments on meetings, reports, 
agreements, new investments and leveraged 
resources, incorporation of priorities in 
government plans.
"It hasn't been easy for us that the municipal governments comply with some of 
the agreements we reached at the time. We must understand that they have their 
own timing and procedures, and that they aren't always as expeditious as we 
would like (...) the government hasn't paid too much attention to what has been 
happening with these roads for the last 20 years. They always say: there are too 
many needs and too little money. Just like the mayor (...) at the beginning I didn't 
believe, but with CDLO, we were able to execute this road work even though the 
mayor's office didn't even send a bag of cement (...) what we would like is that 
people of these villages create the mental connection between these road 
improvements with PDETs. That they understand that, if they had not thought 
about what they wanted back in 2017, today those roads wouldn't be a reality. We 
have our budgetary restrictions, but programs such as CDLO help us achieve our 
goals (...) making this road improvement helped us to reach an agreement among 
neighbors, we were able to share the work for the people of the village (...) 
hopefully, when the mayor or the governor decide to make road infrastructure, 
they will take us into account".
Q5 Multi-level 
dialogue and 
community 
advocacy
Communication 
for Development 
(C4D)
 “Some years ago, we work with other USAID program. They trained us and gave 
us equipment. As I'm an electronic engineer, we have them as good as new (...) 
with the mayor’s office we don't keep much contact, but we are always willing to 
help in whatever is needed. We have constant communication with the one in 
charge of communications (...) We have experience in content development for 
other USAID programs, and some companies of the private sector. Right now, we 
are going to train a couple of youth collectives of Juan José. They are very excited 
(...) for now, we are very interested in giving the municipality a new face. We don't 
want to talk about murders or violence. We want us to be known for the good 
(...) We have had experience creating artistic residencies, and we hope to be able 
to replicate this model in the regions we will be working with CDLO (...) I think 
that the communal radio could be reactivated to improve everything regarding 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 148
TABLE 23. CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS WITH VERBATIM EXAMPLES FOR EACH EVALUATION QUESTION
COMPONENT / 
QUESTION
CATEGORY OF 
ANALYSIS 
DEFINITION SAMPLE/VERBATIM
[INTERVIEW 1 (…) GF (…) INTERVIEW 2 (…) MAPPING 1 (…) GF 3].
communications between communities. On the side of the ethnic groups, these 
resources could be managed (...) we have already built capacities, but we do not 
have the capacity to circulate these contents. We don't have Internet with the 
capacity we need to upload videos (...) many people believe that’s all danger, but 
no, I go around, take pictures of the fincas [farms], and nothing has happened to 
me.” 
New leadership, 
Participation of 
vulnerable groups 
(women, 
indigenous people, 
youth) in the 
design and 
implementation of 
CDLO activities.
Assessments regarding CDLO's capacity to 
promote CBO participation and advocacy in 
decisions for the territorial development. In this 
code it is key to incorporate perceptions on 
leadership, empowerment and relationships of 
CBOs with GOC (Government of Colombia).
CDLO has promoted youth participation in 
community or productive activities.
CDLO has promoted the participation of women 
in community or productive activities.
CDLO has promoted confidence in territorial or 
national authorities. 
CDLO’s contribution to building a culture of 
legality
"In recent years, there is more fear regarding leadership. The young people don't 
want to get involved with the boards and after 8 years I’m tired (...) with this 
experience with CDLO, we now feel more respected in and by the community, 
even the mayor knows about us (...) let's say that we have improved 
communication with the mayor, but we still need to comply with the agreements 
(...) I think that CDLO has created new spaces for deliberation between the public 
sector and the communities (...) with the private sector we still don't have much 
interaction (...). We have the challenge of incorporating the participation of the 
national private sector in our activities into our model (...)
Q6 Contributions 
to territorial 
development
Territorial 
Development 
Strategies, Peace 
Building and 
Culture of Legality
Assessments on processes focused on the 
contribution of the activities implemented by 
CDLO on the implementation of public policies 
regarding the Peace Agreement (PDET, PNIS) and 
municipal development plans. The code also 
includes perceptions or assessments of changes in 
CBO perceptions of the National, Regional, or 
Municipal Government in relation to the 
generation of incentives for the participation of 
formal/legal economies.
"We are not very clear what ART has been doing, are they the ones from PDET? 
(...) With the support of CDLO for beekeeping, there are now more people who 
believe that these productive projects can be included in the National Integral 
Substitution Plan (Plan Nacional Integral de Sustitución, PNIS) (...) Look, that 
treadplate has given us a lot of trust in your program (CDLO) but also creates 
distance between the mayor's office and us, because they never deliver (...) 
International cooperation is a strategic ally for us as articulators of territorial 
development. We have been working in these PDET municipalities very 
articulately, and the only thing I have to say is that we should be invited to the 
inauguration of these improved roads. ”
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
149 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
2. REPORTS, MATRICES AND ANALYTICAL REPORTS, AND CASE STUDIES: After coding, we 
created 55 thematic reports and 11 territorial reports that included quotes from agents. These reports 
were the basis for the matrices and analytical reports divided by question and corridor; text analysis; 
and four case studies that addressed good practices regarding different components in different 
territories (See Annex II).
In particular, the case studies seek to describe and understand in-depth a certain significant experience 
for the community and the CDLO Activity. Cases were carefully selected to increase the likelihood of 
identifying diverse approaches, projects, and contexts that can lead to valuable lessons for the CDLO 
Activity. Each case study accounts for a particular process, considering its potential for replication and 
scalability. The evaluation team compared the four case studies horizontally to find patterns in CDLO's 
contributions to territorial development.109
3. WRITING ANALYTICAL NOTES: During the fieldwork and coding processes, researchers 
generate ideas and record them as notes. These can be notes on the context, emerging questions, 
preliminary findings, hypotheses, or more structured ideas such as data conclusions. These notes reflect 
the researcher’s own interpretations, which distinguishes them from codes. The analytical notes tend to 
be very useful for the drafting of the final report.110
It was recommended that for the CDLO evaluation, the evaluation team and the fieldwork/data
collection team be the same. This has certain advantages. At the end of each day of fieldwork, the 
members of the evaluation team, two per corridor, meet and write analytical notes that they could later 
integrate into the codes defined in the evaluation design matrix. These notes were used to write the 
early report.
4. COOCCURRENCE MATRICES AND QUALITATIVE VISUALIZATION: After coding, the 
evaluation team created cooccurrence matrices between cross-cutting categories and analytical 
subcategories in order to identify trends that would allow researchers to validate or deepen preliminary 
findings or hypotheses. Thematic and territorial reports come from these matrices. The Word Clouds 
visualization tool enabled the evaluation team to identify the most reiterative terms in the processed 
data. It was useful to identify graphically what the main issue or need is, and those that have not yet 
been resolved and are a priority for the socioeconomic development of the village (priorities included in 
the surveys of directors and members). In the chart, the frequency or density of a response is shown by 
the size of the word. 
QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY 
In the quantitative approach, the evaluation team explored the relationship between outputs and 
outcomes performance, with particular interest in capturing the multiplicative effect of the synergies of 
the four CDLO components presented in Exhibit 9. This section describes the general features of each 
quantitative technique that the evaluation team used to answer the evaluation questions. The evaluation 
team used four techniques, which are presented in this section. 
109 Bartlett, L; Vavrus, F. (2017) Rethinking case studies research. New York: Routledge. 110 Corbin, J. y Strauss, A. (2012). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 150
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Descriptive analysis is the first step of statistical and econometric analysis. In total, the evaluation team
developed a different kind of analysis depending on the type of data collected. 
ANALYSIS OF MISSION INDICATORS: The evaluation team performed an analysis of goal 
compliance using the indicators from CDLO's information system report (Mission-MONITOR). This 
analysis began with an association of the activities, their status as of September 2020(under 
implementation, in closure or closed), indicators, and evaluation questions. We calculated the progress 
of goals in percentages for a purified base of activities with progress indicators greater than zero. 
Additionally, the evaluation team performed an analysis of the closed activities that had progress 
percentages of less than 100 percent of the goals, identifying their main component and the 
implementation region. Lastly, the team identified those indicators that represented difficulties in terms 
of interpretation, applicability to CDLO, data collection, or a required goal adjustment.
ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY DATA: Averages, minimums, maximums, standard deviations, growth 
rates, and tests were calculated to establish whether there were significant differences between CDLO 
municipalities and non-beneficiary municipalities in the same department. Box 1 shows the methodology 
used in these tests. 
SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS: For categorical variables with single or multiple responses, we calculated 
relative frequencies and the test of proportion difference. For the numerical variables, the sample size, 
mean, median, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum were calculated, and mean difference tests 
were performed (see Box 1). These calculations were made for two surveys of CBO directors and of 
CBO members, for a total of 230 variables. The data was processed at the national and regional levels, 
by type of activity and by organization.
BOX 1: COMPARISON TEST
To compare variables between groups, the evaluation team used mean tests when the variable was continuous, 
and independence tests when the variable was discrete. The t-test was used for the former and Pearson's Chi￾squared test for the latter. 
In regard to the continuous variables, and under the assumptions of independence of observation, a normal 
distribution, and homoscedasticity, the difference in means follow a t-student distribution, such as contrast 
statistics, with 𝑛𝑛1 + 𝑛𝑛2 − 2 degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom correspond to the size of the two 
populations being compared, making it possible to compare the average value for the variable of interest between 
two groups. The null hypothesis (𝐻𝐻𝑂𝑂) is that the means (𝜇𝜇) of groups are equal and the alternative hypothesis 
(𝐻𝐻1) claims that these are different. 
𝐻𝐻𝑂𝑂: 𝜇𝜇1 = 𝜇𝜇2, 𝐻𝐻1: 𝜇𝜇1 ≠ 𝜇𝜇2
To answer this question, we need to know the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. The 
definition of contrast statistic is (Wooldridge, 2013):
𝑡𝑡 = 𝜇𝜇1 − 𝜇𝜇2
𝑠𝑠/√𝑛𝑛
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 |𝑡𝑡| > 𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼
2
the null hypothesis is rejected
Where 𝑠𝑠 is the standard error and 𝛼𝛼 is the level of confidence.
151 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
BOX 1: COMPARISON TEST
Turning to discrete variables, the chi-square independence test is widely used to determine whether the 
distribution of one variable depends on the distribution of another. The null hypothesis (H0) is that the 
variables are independent and the alternative hypothesis (H1) claims that these are not independent. To test 
these hypotheses, in a frequency table with r rows and c columns, we compared the observed frequency (𝜂𝜂 ij) 
with expected frequency Eij throughout the chi statistic (Diaz & Morales, 2009)
𝜒𝜒0
2 = ��(𝜂𝜂𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖)2
𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑐𝑐
=1
𝑟𝑟
𝑖𝑖=1
Then, values of 𝜒𝜒2 with low probability (in the right of 𝜒𝜒0
2) leads to rejection of the null hypothesis.
𝜒𝜒
2=𝑧𝑧 1
2+ 𝑧𝑧 2
2+ ⋯ +𝑧𝑧
2
, with k independent normal standar variables and (𝑟𝑟 −1) ∗ (𝑐𝑐 −1) degrees of freedom
Additionally, the evaluation team applied a cluster analysis at corridor level, but the results were not 
solid enough to be used in the evaluation given that, for some corridors, we obtained a reduced number 
of organizations, and the errors were very high.111 That is why the team did not use this analysis to 
answer the evaluation questions. 
MULTIPLE REGRESSIONS 
Multiple regressions are the second level of analysis. The purpose was to analyze the association 
between prioritized outcome variables and product variables for questions 2 to 5 from the survey of directors. 
The following is a description of the specification of the regression models, followed by a description of the 
methodologies we used. 
1. SPECIFICATION
Dependent variables, or variables to be explained 
Based on the data from the survey of directors and the processing of the qualitative data, we highlighted 
the following outcome variables to be explained: 
TABLE 24. DEPENDANT VARIABLES
QUESTION VARIABLES OF INTEREST POPULATION
Question 2 CBI proxy and dimensions All CBOs
CBI Proxy CBOs that recognize the support received 
from CDLO 
Question 3 During the last year, it earned a profit for the 
organization. 
CBOs whose main activity produces income 
111 A cluster analysis is a technique for grouping individuals or objects into unknown groups. The number and characteristics of 
the groups are derived from the data and are not usually known prior to analysis, although scatter diagrams can be used at the 
outset to display some of the main characteristics of the underlying clusters. Using analytical clustering techniques, which are 
commonly categorized into hierarchical and nonhierarchical methods, it is possible to identify homogeneous groups and the 
variables that determine them (Afifi, May & Clark, 2012).
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 152
TABLE 24. DEPENDANT VARIABLES
QUESTION VARIABLES OF INTEREST POPULATION
Since 2018, earnings have: increased, decreased, remained 
the same.
CBO whose main activity produces income 
and in the last year earned a profit. 
Total number of economic agreements (include 
breakdown of the type of ally) 
CBOs whose main activity produces income 
The economic situation of the village has: has improved, 
remained equally good, remained equally bad, or 
worsened. 
All CBOs
Question 4 Rating of relevance CBOs that have participated in infrastructure 
works 
Management qualification and installed capacity CBOs that have participated, as executors, in 
infrastructure works 
Benefits of the work CBOs that have both participated in 
infrastructure works and been supported by 
CDLO
Improvement of the tertiary road since 2018 All CBOs
Question 5 Participations in non-CDLO territorial development areas All CBOs
Members who represent their CBO in territorial 
development areas 
CBOs that report having participated in 
territorial development spaces:
1. Municipal Rural Development Council
(Consejo Municipal de Desarrollo Rural, 
CMDR)
2. Formulation of the 2020-2023 municipal
development plan.
3. Production chain sector-based committees
Benefits of participating in territorial development spaces 
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
Independent or explanatory variables
The independent variables of interest are those that characterize the way in which the organizations 
were treated. Thus, to conceptually encompass the different components given by CDLO related to 
other contributions, we chose the following variables as explanatory:
TABLE 25. INDEPENDANT OR EXPLANATORY VARIABLES
QUESTION SOURCE
Perceived CDLO components (Q215) Survey
Agent that provided specific support (Q431, Q508, Q521, Q606, Q609, Q614, Q619, Q708)112 Survey
112 In this analysis, we only included the report of external support received by the seven base agents defined in the survey: 
local government, national government, other CBOs, community action boards, CDLO, international development agencies, 
and private partners. Support from different "Others" was not included. It is worth noting that in some questions referring to 
the execution of activities outside the organization, in the survey of directors, we included an agent that could potentially
contribute to the organization itself e.g., Q521, Q606, Q609, Q614, Q619, Q708. This can be explored in other analyses. For 
153 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
We proposed two types of specifications, whose only difference lies in the form of the perceived 
component variable. One model incorporates each component recognized by the organizations as part 
of their participation in CDLO, while the other model incorporates the number of components the 
organization perceives were delivered to them. 
Lastly, the variable that includes the different potential agents that can provide specific support (such as: 
government, private, other organizations, cooperation and CDLO), seeks to seize differential results 
based on who provided support. This can be interpreted from two different approaches: one, based the 
supply that each agent provides, or, on the other hand, based on demand. That is, in terms of the 
relationship focus organization shave with each agent. 
Control Variables 
In order to control for the relationship between the outcome and output variables by the organizations’ 
characteristics, following criteria of minimization of multicollinearity and maximization of the degrees of 
freedom, we chose the following variables as control variables: 
TABLE 26. CONTROL VARIABLES
POTENTIAL CROSS-CUTTING CONTROLS SOURCE
CBO Type Survey-RA
Number of current active members Survey
% active members Survey
Age of the organization Survey
% women in the organization Survey
% presence of members of the organization who recognize themselves as belonging to an ethnic 
group
Survey
% youth in the organization Survey
Region Survey
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
It is worth noting that variables that characterized the treatment113 and previous participation in other 
territorial development programs114 were discarded as control variables, since they caused 
multicollinearity, or they were not characteristics of the organization and did not fulfil the function of 
controlling the association analysis. Finally, the conceptual criterion and the power of association with 
the variables of interest were given priority for the choice of control variables over the minimization of 
the loss of degrees of freedom. For example, one of the variables with less information is the percentage 
some Y variables of interest, there is no X variable referring to who provided support, because we only asked for the support
of those who already had Y. Thus, this support is not explanatory. For example, Y about whether or not the tertiary road was 
improved. 113 Number of activities in which it participates with CDLO, number of activities in which it participates as executor, time of 
execution of the activity, value of the activity. These variables come from CDLO's administrative record. 114 This variable comes from the survey of directors, and it makes it possible to distinguish whether it was government, USAID 
or other cooperation agencies that participated in the territorial development program.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 154
of members with ethnic recognition; however, given its importance in capturing differential populations 
within the organizations, the evaluation team chose to include it. 
2. METHODOLOGIES
OLS-Ordinary Least Squares Regression
Simple linear regression model derived from the ordinary least square method. This model is used when 
the dependent variable is continuous and normally distributed.115 One such variable is, for example, the 
Capacity Building Index (built from CBI literature). The formal expression of a linear regression model 
with more than one independent or explanatory variable is: 
𝑦𝑦 = 𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑥𝑥1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 +
Where X is the matrix of independent or explanatory variables, 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘 measures the change in 𝑦𝑦 regarding 
𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 and includes other unobserved factors.116 Considering that the model allows the coefficients to be 
interpreted 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘 directly, the general interpretation for the regression coefficient is "for every changed 
unit𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘, the variable𝑦𝑦 changes in 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘 units, keeping constant all other variables". 
Logistic Regression
Probability model for binary variables, i.e., the dependent or explained variable takes values of 0 or 1 
only, in order to characterize a qualitative variable. Examples of this type of variable include "whether or 
not having participated in an infrastructure project brought economic benefits to the organization". That 
said, the formal expression of a logistic regression model, whose probability of response for the 
dependent variable or variable to be explained, is:
𝑃𝑃(𝑦𝑦 = 1| 𝑋𝑋) = 𝐺𝐺(𝑧𝑧) = 𝐺𝐺(𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑥𝑥1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘), 𝑐𝑐 𝐺𝐺 = 𝑒𝑒𝑧𝑧
1 + 𝑒𝑒𝑧𝑧
Where X is the matrix of independent or explanatory variables. Considering that 𝐺𝐺 represents a logistic 
function, and therefore, it is not a linear function, it is necessary to calculate the partial effect for the 
proper interpretation of the results, since the coefficients 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘cannot be interpreted directly. To 
determine the partial effect, the general interpretation for the coefficient of the logistic regression is "for 
each unit change 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘, the probability of 𝑦𝑦 = 1 changes in 𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables 
constant". This model will not generate negative coefficients, since calculating the exponential 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘 always 
delivers positive coefficients. Then, values less than 1 indicate a decrease in probability. Values greater 
than 1 indicate an increase in probability. 
On the other hand, if we wish to estimate the partial effect of the independent or explanatory variables, 
we will need to approach the process differently, according to the type of variable. If the variable is 
continuous then the partial effect on the probability of 𝑦𝑦 = 1 is calculated as follows: 
𝜕𝜕 (𝑦𝑦 = 1| 𝑋𝑋)
𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥1
= 𝜕𝜕 (𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑥𝑥1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘)
𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥1
If the variable is discrete, then the partial effect of 𝑥𝑥1 on the probability of 𝑦𝑦 = 1 is calculated as: 
𝐺𝐺(𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1(𝑐𝑐1 + 1) + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘) − 𝐺𝐺(𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑐𝑐1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘)
115 Afifi, A. A., May, S., & Clark, V. A. (2012). Practical multivariate analysis (Fifth edition.). CRC Press. 116 Wooldridge, J. M. 2013. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 5th Edition. Cengage Learning.
155 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
If the variable is binary, then the partial effect of 𝑥𝑥1 on the probability of 𝑦𝑦 = 1 is calculated as: 
𝐺𝐺(𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘) − 𝐺𝐺(𝛽𝛽0 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘)
On the other hand, based on the type of independent or explanatory variable 𝑥𝑥, we have that for the 
actual interpretation:
When the independent or explanatory variables are continuous, the interpretation is "when the variable 
increases for a unit increase,𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘the probability of𝑦𝑦 = 1 increases or decreases 𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, 
keeping all other variables constant".
When the independent or explanatory variables are discrete, the interpretation is "being in the 
category 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 , compared to the reference category or category of comparison, the probability of 𝑦𝑦 = 1
increases or decreases 𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑥𝑥𝑝𝑝 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant".
When the independent or explanatory variables are binary, the interpretation is "when the variable 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 =
1 compared to the case in which 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 = 0, the probability of 𝑦𝑦 = 1 increases or 
decreases 𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant".
Ordinal Logistic Regression
The ordinal logistic regression is an extension of the logistic regression model for binary variables. 
Conversely, the ordinal logistic model is a probability model for ordinal response variables, i.e.,
categorical variables express magnitude and have an order. Examples of this type of variable include: the 
decision to remain inactive; part-time or full-time work, high, medium or low ratings; and ratings on 
ordinal data statements such as "completely disagree", "disagree", "somewhat agree" or "completely 
agree".117
As in the logistic model, the nonlinear nature of the ordinal logistic model means that the coefficients 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘
cannot be interpreted directly; therefore, interpretation requires the estimation of partial effects. To 
determine the partial effect, the general interpretation is "for each changed unit, 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 the probability of 
reaching a higher level for the variable𝑦𝑦 changes in 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, holding all other variables constant". 
Additionally, the ordinal logistic model implies that the probability of leveling up from one level to 
another is the same regardless of which level you are in, i.e., the probability of moving from 2 to 3 in the 
category is the same as moving from 3 to 4. 
On the other hand, for the specific interpretation according to the type of variable, independent or 
explanatory 𝑥𝑥; the interpretation presented in the logistic model is maintained. However, there is a 
distinction of the nature of the dependent variable, 𝑦𝑦 as follows:
When the independent or explanatory variables are continuous, the interpretation is "for one unit of 
variable increase 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘, the probability of the variable of reaching a higher level𝑦𝑦 changes in 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, 
keeping all other variables constant".
117 Mora, R. (s/f). El modelo Ordinal y el modelo Multinomial [Diapositiva de Power Point]. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 
Departamento de Economía. https://www.eco.uc3m.es/~ricmora/miccua/materials/S13T31_Spanish_handout.pdf 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 156
When the independent or explanatory variables are discrete, the interpretation is "being in the category 
𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘, compared to the reference category or category of comparison, the probability of reaching a higher 
level 𝑦𝑦 changes 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant".
When the independent or explanatory variables are binary, the interpretation is "when the variable 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 =
1 compared to the case in which 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 = 0 , the probability of reaching a higher level𝑦𝑦 changes 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘)
times, keeping all other variables constant".
Multinomial Logistic Regression 
Multinomial logistic regression is an extension of the logistic regression model for binary variables. 
Conversely, multinomial logistic model is a probability model for nominal, multiple response variables. 
Among the examples of this type of variable, we find "among: director, other directors, grassroots 
members of the organization, or all of them, which profile leads the participation of spaces or instances 
of citizen participation?”. 
In the case of multinomial response models (multinomial logistics), the result of the estimation of the 
model pairs each category (director, other directors, core members of the organization, or all of them) 
with a base 𝐽𝐽 = 0 (director). Hence, the model has equations 𝐽𝐽 − 1 with separate parameters for each 
one,118 and the resulting probability of the response𝐽𝐽 for the dependent variable or variable to be 
explained is: 
𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑙 �
𝑃𝑃
𝑃𝑃𝐽𝐽
� = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽𝐽𝐽𝑋𝑋𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 1, … 4 
Thus, the main difference in comparison to logistic regression for binary variable is that now there is 
more than one equation estimating a vector of parameters 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘. However, as in the logistic model, the 
non-linear nature of the multinomial logistic model means that the coefficients 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘 cannot be interpreted 
directly; therefore, interpretation requires the estimation of partial effects. To determine the partial 
effect, the general interpretation is "for each changed unit,𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 the probability of other directors 
(category) versus director (base category) changes𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant". 
On the other hand, for the specific interpretation according to type of variable, the interpretation 
presented in the logistic model is maintained. The distinction of the nature of the dependent variable is𝑦𝑦
as follows:
When the independent or explanatory variables are continuous, the interpretation is "when the variable 
increases for a unit increase, 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘the probability that other directors (category) versus director (base 
category) changes 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘)times, keeping all other variables constant".
When the independent or explanatory variables are discrete, the interpretation is "being in the 
category𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 , compared to the reference category or category of comparison, the probability that other 
directors (category) versus director (base category) changes in𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other 
variables constant".
118 Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis. Florida, EEUU: Wiley-Interscience & Sons, Inc.
157 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
When the independent or explanatory variables are binary, the interpretation is "when the variable 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 =
1compared to the case in which 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 = 0 , the probability that other directors (category) versus director 
(base category) changes in 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant".
Poisson Regression
Probability model for count variables, i.e., a variable that can take non-negative, absolute values when an 
event occurs𝑛𝑛 times. Examples of this type of variable include "number of economic or business 
agreements (productive, commercial, etc.) that an organization has with other organizations or private 
companies, public entities or other community-based organizations". 
In the case of the Poisson regression model, the probability that 𝑦𝑦 is equal to the conditionalℎ value 
over 𝑥𝑥 is:
𝑃𝑃(𝑦𝑦 = ℎ| 𝑋𝑋) = 𝑒𝑒 [−𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑥𝑥1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘)][𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽0 + 𝛽𝛽1𝑥𝑥1 + ⋯ 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘) ]ℎ/ℎ!
Where ℎ is the number of occurrences of the event ℎ!, denotes a factorial, and X is the matrix of 
independent or explanatory variables. Considering that a count variable implies a nonlinear distribution 
associated with Poisson distribution, the coefficients 𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘 cannot be interpreted directly. That said, the 
general interpretation for the coefficient of the Poisson regression is "for each unit change 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘, the 
probability of an additional event changes in𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant".
The specific interpretation regarding type of independent or explanatory variable can be summarized as 
follows: 
When the independent or explanatory variables are continuous, the interpretation is "when the variable 
increases for a unit increase,𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘the probability of an additional event changes in 𝑒𝑒𝑥𝑥 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping 
all other variables constant".
When the independent or explanatory variables are discrete, the interpretation is "being in the 
category 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 , compared to the reference category or category of comparison, the probability of an 
additional event changes in𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘) times, keeping all other variables constant".
When the independent or explanatory variables are binary, the interpretation is "when the variable 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 =
1compared to the case in which 𝑥𝑥𝑘𝑘 = 0 , the probability of an additional event changes in𝑒𝑒 (𝛽𝛽𝑘𝑘)
times, keeping all other variables constant".
COMPOSITE INDEX
Composite indicators are helpful to provide comparisons and illustrate complex issues. They also help 
identify common trends across different indicators proven to be useful in benchmarking individual 
performance. For these reasons, the evaluation team built a composite indicator to serve as proxy of 
the capacity building of CBOs. The team used multivariate data analysis techniques to build the 
composite indicator and CBI's conceptual framework.
The index uses descriptive statistics. This data was obtained from surveys of directors and members 
clustered based on five dimensions of institutional strengthening: governance, administrative, planning, 
physical and human capital, and financial. A score is obtained for each of them there is a score, and then 
the weighted average is estimated. The Index takes values between 0 and 100. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 158
NETWORK ANALYSIS 
The evaluation team used a network analysis to understand the relationships between the CBOs 
involved in the implementation of the interventions and establish whether these relationships contribute 
to the CBOs' performance in the Activity. Next, we present the processing and definition of the 
universe for the analysis, followed by a description of the network methodology and the main centrality 
measures, and finally, the possible limitations of this analysis.
1. BASE PROCESSING AND UNIVERSE DEFINITION
126 CBOs are identified out of the 309 CBOs surveyed. Directors report having a CBO of CDLO as an
ally, which belongs to the first cleaned sample frame composed of 447 CBOs and whose codes were
uploaded in the survey. The network constructed from this report comprises 222 CBOs. These are
distributed as follows:
• Surveyed CBOs report CDLO allies and are reported as CDLO allies: 55
• Surveyed CBOs report CDLO allies, but are not reported as CDLO allies of others: 71
• Surveyed CBOs did not report CDLO allies, but are reported as CDLO allies: 62
• CBOs that were not surveyed, but are reported as CDLO allies: 34
It is worth noting that groups 1 and 2 add up the total of 126 CBOs that reported allies and were 
surveyed; while group 4 are the CBOs that were not surveyed but are part of the networks. 
2. METHODOLOGY
Network analysis is a theoretical and methodological approach that indicates the importance of studying
the relationships, links or connections between actors, which may be individuals or organizations, among
others. Some119 network analysis emerged as one of the first geographic information systems (GIS),
which has a scientific basis in graph theory and topology.120 A network is understood as a fundamental
representation of space that visualizes a wide range of relationships between agents. It consists of a set
of vertices (people, entities, organizations or others) and edges (relationships or links) that connect
them.121 In other words, a social network would be made up of a set of agents, which may be individuals
or organizations, and one or more types of relationships between them.122 An example of a network is a
community network that shows relevant work links, activities, or projects between organizations
located in the same department.
Formally within network analysis, graph theory defines 𝑁𝑁 = {1, … , 𝑛𝑛} as the finite number of people, 
entities, organizations, or other agents interacting in the network, and as the network in which there 
are social connections between the actors; = 1 so that if 𝑖𝑖 and𝑗𝑗 are direct allies and = 0, 
119 Cárdenas, J. (2016). El análisis de redes: qué es, orígenes, crecimiento y futuro. Pensando Psicología, 12(19), 5–10. 
https://doi.org/10.16925/pe.v12i19.1330 120 Curtin, K. M. (2007). Network analysis in geographic information science: Review, assessment, and projections. Cartography 
and Geographic Information Science, 34(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304007781002163 121 Curtin, K. M. (2007). Network analysis in geographic information science: Review, assessment, and projections. Cartography 
and Geographic Information Science, 34(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304007781002163 122 Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163–177. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249 
159 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
otherwise.123 This information about the agents and their connections in graph theory is represented by 
one or more schemas.124 Additionally, it is understood that with each network there is an associated 
flow.
To understand the relationships between the community organizations involved in the implementation 
of CDLO interventions, the evaluation team used a network analysis to construct a set of network 
sociograms for each of the nine departments included in the sample. In particular, for the construction 
of the sociograms, the team used the answers to the question addressed to the organizations "Since 
2018, with which community organization(s) have you worked together, or had joint activities or 
projects relevant to this organization? Name three organizations max."
A network sociogram is a graphical representation used in network analysis that reflects the social 
relationships (links or connections) between agents (individuals, organizations or others) and through 
which the interdependence of the subjects that are part of the network can be explored and visualized 
by answering questions such as: Who are influential people or entities within the network? Or how fast 
can this person or entity reach everyone else in the network?125
For the latter, the centrality indices are an essential tool in network analysis. These indices are defined 
at the vertices of the graph and are designed to classify agents according to their position in the 
network.126 Most of these centrality indices are based on the shortest paths linking a pair of agents. 
They do so by measuring, for example, the average distance or the proportion of shortest paths.127
Centrality indices include: degree, degree in, degree out, betweenness and closeness. These indices 
establish a detailed analysis of the role of each agent within the network. That said, before presenting 
the characterization of each of the centrality measures, it is necessary to consider the following 
definitions for the proper interpretation of the schemes and indices:
− In a network analysis, an organization (case, observation unit) is referred to as a vertex.
− In a network analysis, an established relationship (whatever its direction and meaning -Very
relevant, Not as relevant, Relevant-) in referred to as an edge.
Centrality Measures
a. Degree: Measures the number of links or connections that a vertex has with other vertices belonging
to the network. This measure indicates the degree of connection that the relevant vertex has. Thus,
degree of centrality can be seen as an index of exposure, i.e., "an agent with a high degree of centrality
may be more likely to be reached in the network".128 Hence, for the exercise carried out in this
123 Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2009). Peer Effects and Social Networks in Education. Review of Economic 
Studies, 76(4), 1239–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00550.x 124 Kuz, A., Falco, M., & Giandini, R. (2016). Análisis de redes sociales: Un caso práctico. Computación y Sistemas, 20(1), 89–
106. https://doi.org/10.13053/CyS-20-1-2321 125 QRS International. (2017). NVivo11 Plus for Windows Guía Primeros Pasos (Vol. 148) and Weishaar, H., Amos, A., & Collin,
J. (2015). Capturing complexity: mixing methods in the analysis of a European tobacco control policy network. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.897851 126 Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163–177.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249
127 Ibid. 128 Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Martínez-González, E. G., & Aguilar-Ávila, J. (2017). Análisis de redes sociales: Conceptos clave y
cálculo de indicadores; pag84.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 160
research, degree responds to "how many organizations does an organization has a link with". Then, the 
general interpretation is: organizations with a greater number of close allies are more central.129
Formally, the degree of centrality of an agent is defined as:
𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷(𝐴𝐴) = 𝑘𝑘𝐴𝐴 = 1, 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷(𝐵𝐵) = 𝑘𝑘𝐵𝐵 = 4
Defining 𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷(𝑖𝑖)in {0, g-1}, where g is the number of vertices in the network.130
b. Degree In: Number of edges in the direction of the observation vertex, i.e., the number of links an
actor receives (Aguilar-Gallegos et al., 2017).131 For the exercise we conducted in this research, the
degree in responds to "how many and who reported having a link with the organization". Thus, the
general interpretation is: organizations that receive many links (other organizations reported having a
link with that organization) are protruding, which means that other organizations seek to have direct
links with them.132
Formally, the degree in of centrality of an agent is defined as:
𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 (𝐶𝐶) = 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 2 
Both are defined in {0, g-1}133
c. Degree Out: Number of emergent edges of the observation vertex, i.e. it is the number of links sent by
an agent to others.134 For the exercise the evaluation team conducted in this research, degree out
responds to "how many and with whom the organization reported having a link"; so the general
interpretation is: organizations that have many direct connections with other organizations are
influential, which means that they can exchange or transfer information to several organizations.135 It is
worth noting that there are organizations that are reported as allies, but that were never surveyed;
meaning that they may have degree in ≠ 0, but their degree out will always be = 0.
Formally, the incorrect degree of centrality of an agent is defined as:
𝑃𝑃𝐷𝐷
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (𝐶𝐶) = 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 1
Both are defined in {0, g-1}136
d. Betweenness: It is the shortest path of information and determines the communication routes to
know at which points the network could break. Betweenness counts the times in which a vertex is
129 Cordón, O. (2013). Redes Sociales y Sistemas Complejos. Tema 3: Redes Sociales. Centralidad. [Presentación Power Point] 
Recuperado de Redes y Sistemas Complejos website: 130 Ibid. 131 Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Martínez-González, E. G., & Aguilar-Ávila, J. (2017). Análisis de redes sociales: Conceptos clave y 
cálculo de indicadores; pag84.
132 Cordón, O. (2013). Redes Sociales y Sistemas Complejos. Tema 3: Redes Sociales. Centralidad. [Presentación Power Point] 
Recuperado de Redes y Sistemas Complejos website 133 Ibid. 134 Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Martínez-González, E. G., & Aguilar-Ávila, J. (2017). Análisis de redes sociales: Conceptos clave y 
cálculo de indicadores; pag84.
135 Cordón, O. (2013). Redes Sociales y Sistemas Complejos. Tema 3: Redes Sociales. Centralidad. [Presentación Power Point] 
Recuperado de Redes y Sistemas Complejos website:
136 Ibid.
161 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
between each pair of other vertices.137 Then, for the exercise conducted in this research, betweenness 
reflects the "the organization through which the majority of relationships flow. Without this 
organization, the network would break"; so, the general interpretation is: the more organizations that 
need to go through an observed organization to make their indirect connections through the shortest 
paths, more central that organization will be. 
Formally, betweenness is defined as:
𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵(𝑖𝑖) = � (𝑖𝑖)/
,𝑘𝑘 ∈ 𝑉𝑉 (𝐺𝐺)/𝑣𝑣
Where is the number of minimum paths connecting any pair of vertices,𝑗𝑗 𝑦𝑦 𝑘𝑘 (usually 1) and (𝑖𝑖) is 
the number of such paths that include the actor 𝑖𝑖. 𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵(𝑖𝑖) is defined on {0, (g - 1)(g - 2)} in directed 
networks and on {0, (g - 1)(g - 2)} undirected networks.138 A directed network is when all edges have a 
positive flow in only one direction, while an undirected network is when all edges have flows in more 
than one direction.139
e. Closeness: Is a measure of scope that represents the speed at which information can reach other 
agents from a given starting point. To calculate closeness, we first add up all the distances between the 
case and the others, providing the measure of remoteness. Second, to determine closeness, we calculate 
the inverse of this sum as the shortest distance from the given case to the other connected vertices in 
the network.140 Then, for the exercise we conducted in this research, closeness reflects the "speed with 
which an organization communicates with others within the network"; so, the general interpretation is: 
if the organization is in contact with others and needs few organizations to reach others, then it is close; 
while if an organization needs several organizations to reach others it is distant. Therefore, an 
organization with a high closeness value would take less time to reach the resource (e.g., information) 
flowing in the network.141
Formally, betweenness is defined as:
𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐(𝑖𝑖) = 
1
∑ 𝑑𝑑 (𝑖𝑖, ) 𝑔𝑔
𝑗𝑗=1
unstandardized and 𝐶𝐶′𝑐𝑐(𝑖𝑖) = 𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐(𝑖𝑖)
𝑔𝑔−1
standardized
Where g is the number of vertices in the network and∑ (𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗) 𝑔𝑔
=1 is the sum of all the distances 
connecting the agent𝑖𝑖 to the rest.142
SPATIAL ANALYSIS APPROACH 
Spatial analysis techniques link and integrate data so that the evaluation team can create and analyze new 
variables that support and validate the answers to the evaluation questions by enhancing understanding 
137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. 139 TAHA, H. A. (2012). Investigación de operaciones 9na Edición. 140 Cordón, O. (2013). Redes Sociales y Sistemas Complejos. Tema 3: Redes Sociales. Centralidad. [Presentación Power Point] 
Recuperado de Redes y Sistemas Complejos website
141 Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Martínez-González, E. G., & Aguilar-Ávila, J. (2017). Análisis de redes sociales: Conceptos clave y 
cálculo de indicadores; pag84.
142 Cordón, O. (2013). Redes Sociales y Sistemas Complejos. Tema 3: Redes Sociales. Centralidad. [Presentación Power Point] 
Recuperado de Redes y Sistemas Complejos website
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 162
of their dynamics within the territory.143 This analysis was used as a triangulation strategy of quantitative 
and qualitative data to integrate the analytical elements shown in 22 in a single geographic space.
The CDLO Activity aims to bring together diverse actors around territorial development in strategic 
areas. The definition of the corridors is based on common geographic, economic, and cultural 
characteristics. Therefore, the geographic element is fundamental to the CDLO Activity, which made 
spatial analysis a key part of its evaluation, as its approaches complement the quantitative and qualitative 
components. 
The analysis performed comprised six steps shown in Exhibit 39. The first two steps consist of the 
proper organization for this tool of contextual information, mainly indicators of organized armed groups 
and illicit crops, and the results of social mapping. This information is integrated into the Geographic 
Information System (GIS) which allows the application of methods and algorithms to estimate densities 
and isochrones. The densities show on a map the variable amount (organized armed groups and illicit 
crops, among others) in each location. The isochrones made it possible to locate the detailed area in the 
region or corridor of interest. This made it possible to visualize on maps: the density of actions in the 
territory, the coverage of public services and the Internet, and DANE (National Administrative 
Department of Statistics) demographics.
Exhibit 39. Spatial Analysis Methodology
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
143 USAID (2020) Evaluation Design Producers to Markets Alliance Activity 
163 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
REFERENCES
Afifi, A. A., May, S., & Clark, V. A. (2012). Practical multivariate analysis (Fifth edition.). CRC Press.
Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis. Florida, EEUU: Wiley-Interscience & 
Sons, Inc.
Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. Florida, EEUU: Wiley-Interscience & Sons, Inc.
Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Martínez-González, E. G., & Aguilar-Ávila, J. (2017). Análisis de redes sociales: 
Conceptos clave y cálculo de indicadores.
Arjona, A. (2016). Rebelocracy: Social Order in the Colombian Civil War. Illinois, Estados Unidos: 
Cambridge University Press
Arias, M & Ibáñez, A. (2012). Conflicto armado en Colombia y producción agrícola: ¿aprenden los 
pequeños productores a vivir en medio del conflicto? Documento 22 CEDE No 44. Universidad de los 
Andes, Facultad de Economía
Banks, M. (2018) Using visual data in qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Bartlett, L; Vavrus, F. (2017) Rethinking case studies research. New York: Routledge.
Bocken, N. and Short, S (2015) Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. 
Brinkmann, S. y Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications.
Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 
25(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249
Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2009). Peer Effects and Social Networks in Education. 
Review of Economic Studies, 76(4), 1239–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00550.x 
Canzanelli) (2003, Competitividad Territorial, inclusión social, instrumentos para el desarrollo 
económico 
Canzanelli, G. (2004) Valorización del potencial endógeno, competitividad territorial y lucha contra la 
pobreza 
Cárdenas, J. (2016). El análisis de redes: qué es, orígenes, crecimiento y futuro. Pensando Psicología, 
12(19), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.16925/pe.v12i19.1330 
Castro, A; et al. (2015). Definición de Categorías de Ruralidad. DNP, Dirección de Estudios 
Económicos, Documento 437. Código JEL: R23, R28, R58.
CEDE-Uniandes (2016). Encuesta longitudinal colombiana de la universidad de los andes (ELCA) 
Formulario comunidad rural – 2016. 
CNC (2018). Encuesta de línea base territorios de oportunidad.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 164
CNC (2018). Encuesta de línea base para los planes de desarrollo territorial (PDET)
Coffey, A. (2018). Doing ethnography. London: Sage Publications.
Corbin, J. y Strauss, A. (2012). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de 
Antioquia. 
Cordón, O. (2013). Redes Sociales y Sistemas Complejos. Tema 3: Redes Sociales. Centralidad. 
[Presentación Power Point] Recuperado de Redes y Sistemas Complejos website: 
https://sci2s.ugr.es/sites/default/files/files/Teaching/GraduatesCourses/RedesSistemasCompejos/Tema03-
RedesSociales-13-14.pdf 
Curtin, K. M. (2007). Network analysis in geographic information science: Review, assessment, and 
projections. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 34(2), 103–111. 
https://doi.org/10.1559/152304007781002163 
Denzin, N. K. y Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Díaz, L.G. & Morales, M.A (2009). Análisis estadístico de datos categóricos. Bogotá, Colombia: 
Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Emerson, R. M. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University Press.
Flick, U. (2018 a). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage. 
Flick, U. (2018 b). Doing triangulation and mixed methods. London: Sage.
Gibbs, G. (2018) Analyzing qualitative data. Londres: Sage.
Gil, A. G. (2006). Acción colectiva en contextos de violencia prolongada. Estudios Políticos, (29), 9-60. 
Geertz, C. (1980). La interpretación de las culturas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Geertz, C. (1984). Conocimiento local. Barcelona: Paidós. 
González, F. & Bolívar, I (2002): “Violencia y construcción del Estado en Colombia. Aproximación a una 
lectura geopolítica de la violencia colombiana” en Procesos regionales de violencia y configuración del 
Estado, 1998-2000, Informe final de investigación, Bogotá, Cinep, 22 de febrero.
Gracia, O. (2020). Medición del desempeño usando la gestión pública orientada a resultados. PPT.
Krueger, R. (1998a) Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Krueger, R. (1998b) Involving community members in focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kuz, A., Falco, M., & Giandini, R. (2016). Análisis de redes sociales: Un caso práctico. Computacion y 
Sistemas, 20(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.13053/CyS-20-1-2321 
165 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Misión para la Transformación del Campo, (2014). Estrategia de implementación del “Programa de 
Desarrollo Rural Integral con Enfoque Territorial” (Informe para la Misión para la Transformación del 
Campo). DNP, Bogotá, Colombia.
Mora, R. (s/f). El modelo Ordinal y el modelo Multinomial [Diapositiva de Power Point]. Universidad 
Carlos III de Madrid, Departamento de Economía. 
https://www.eco.uc3m.es/~ricmora/miccua/materials/S13T31_Spanish_handout.pdf 
National Administrative Department of Statistics (2019). Gran Encuesta Integrada de Hogares - GEIH - 
2019. 
National Administrative Department of Statistics (2019). Encuesta Nacional de Calidad de Vida - ECV 
2019. 
National Administrative Department of Statistics (2019). Censo Nacional de Población y Vivienda 2018. 
Ocampo, J. (2014). Misión para la Transformación del Campo: Marco Conceptual. Bogotá, Colombia: 
DNP, Bogotá, Colombia.
OECD. (2002). Glosario de los principales términos sobre evaluación y gestión basada en resultados. 
Ver: www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation.
PNUD. (2010). Teoría de Cambio. Un enfoque de pensamiento-acción para navegar en la complejidad 
de los procesos de cambio social. Guatemala.
PNUD (s.f). Índice de capacidad organizacional ICO Guía de aplicación y análisis del índice de capacidad 
organizacional a las agencias de desarrollo económico local.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M (2011) Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review. 
Prosperidad Social (2019). Diagnósticos Territoriales 2019.
QRS International. (2017). NVivo11 Plus for Windows Guía Primeros Pasos (Vol. 148).
Rubio, M. (2014). The Effect of Armed Conflict on Social Capital in Colombia. Preliminary Version.
Saldaña, J. (2016) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage Publications.
Statistics Directorate and the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry of Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development OECD & Applied Statistics Unit -Joint Research Centre JRC 
(2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators Methodology and user guide.
Sepúlveda, S. (2008). Biograma: metodología para estimar el nivel de desarrollo sostenible de territorios. 
IICA, S. José, Costa Rica. 132 p. ISBN 13: 978-92-9039-872-1. 
Sepúlveda, S. (2003). El enfoque territorial del desarrollo rural. IICA, San José, Costa Rica. 180 p. ISBN 
92-9039-580 X
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 166
Silver, C. (2007) Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. London: Sage 
Publications.
Spradley, J (1980) Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Publications.
TAHA, H. A. (2012). Investigación de operaciones 9na Edición.
Taylor, J. y Bogdan, R. (1998). Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación. Barcelona: 
Paidós.
Trujillo, Erazo, Loaiza (2018) La sostenibilidad del capital territorial: propuesta metodológica para su 
análisis y valoración.
USAID, Colombia (2018). Base Line Study: Community Development and Licit Opportunities Program 
(CDLO). 
USAID (2020). Quantitative survey-Associations.
USAID, FHI 360 &MSI (2010). La Guía Esencial de las ONG para Administrar la Adjudicación de la 
USAID.
Weishaar, H., Amos, A., & Collin, J. (2015). Capturing complexity: mixing methods in the analysis of a 
European tobacco control policy network. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(2), 
175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.897851 
Wiesinger, G (2007) The importance of social capital in rural development, networking and decision￾making in rural areas.
Wolfe, D (2003) Community Participation and Multi-level Governance in Economic Development Policy.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2013. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 5th Edition. Cengage 
Learning. 
167 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX V : INSTRUMENTS
In this annex we present the qualitative and quantitative instruments designed and applied in the 
evaluation.
Considering the objectives of this evaluation, the evaluation team designed four qualitative instruments 
to collect accurate data regarding the ways that different actors perceive, interpret, and evaluate the 
CDLO Activity. These instruments are: i) semi-structured interviews where participants were 
encouraged to describe as accurately as possible their experience in the CDLO Activity, depending on 
their role (11 roles were included, each having its own template of interview): leaders of CBOs linked to 
traditional and non-traditional economic activities, JACs involved in infrastructure projects, beneficiaries 
in communication for development initiatives, commercial partners (strategic partners), officials of 
territorial and national governments, and territorial and national professionals of the CDLO Activity; ii) 
focus groups with CBO´s members with the interest of drawing on individual understanding and 
experience to derive a common knowledge about the Activity, as well as its impact on the population 
and geographic corridor; iii) Social mapping where CBO members use visual elements to depict the 
CDLO activities where they have participated in a map of the geographic corridor, showing their 
variation over time; iv) ethnographic tours with directors and members of the CBO, to observe the 
progress of the Activity in the field. We applied 101 semi-structured interviews, 10 group sessions 
(focus group and social mapping) and 10 ethnographic tours.
The purpose of the quantitative approach was to establish the experience, achievements and results of 
the participation of CBOs through the information provided by directors and members of CBOs 
participants in CDLO. To this end, we designed two surveys, one focusing on directors, exploring in 
detail CBO’S characteristics and capacities, and the description and contributions of the activities CDLO 
supported. The second survey directed to the characterization of the members and the CBO, detailing 
the day-by-day links between the members and the CBO, as well as the characteristics and contributions 
of the activities CDLO supported. The survey was applied to 309 directors, which constitutes a census 
of CBOs, and to 1,090 members.
QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA A ORGANIZACIONES DE PRODUCTORES VINCULADOS 
A ECONOMÍAS TRADICIONALES
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES
EI.A. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA 
A ORGANIZACIONES DE PRODUCTORES 
VINCULADAS A AGRONEGOCIOS O ACTIVIDADES 
ECONÓMICAS TRADICIONALES
Duración:
1 hora
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 168
Beneficiarios del programa: líderes organizaciones de productores agrícolas (cacao, café, frutales, hortalizas, 
plátano, cereales); ganaderas, avícolas, porcinas, etc.
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones, no existen respuestas buenas o malas, 
nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados 
para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un 
registro y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTAS
1. Presentación 1.1 ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades productivas que tienen en sus fincas los 
miembros de su organización? ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo?
1.2 ¿Cuál es la principal actividad económica de la región? ¿ha variado en el 
tiempo?
1.3 Antes de la llegada de Territorios de Oportunidad ¿qué otros programas 
existían en la región en los cuales usted participó? ¿o qué otros programas 
existen actualmente en los cuales usted (o los miembros de su organización) 
participa(n)?
2. Relación con el 
programa.
¿Cómo ingresó al 
programa?
2.1. ¿Me podría describir en sus palabras qué es el programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
2.2. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿Qué lo animó a 
participar?
3. Intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad
¿En qué consistió 
la intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
Sobre la organización
3.1. Cuéntenos un poco sobre su organización: 
i. ¿Cuándo fue fundada? ¿Cuáles son sus objetivos?
ii. ¿Con cuántos asociados cuenta? 
iii. ¿Qué es lo bueno de estar asociado? 
iv. ¿Qué dificultades se presentan en su organización?
3.2. ¿Cómo fue el proceso para que su organización ingresara al programa 
Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.3. ¿Ha recibido asistencia técnica por parte de Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿En 
qué consistió? ¿Durante cuánto tiempo? ¿Por parte de quién?
3.4. ¿Su organización ha recibido apoyo de Territorios de Oportunidad para 
mejorar sus capacidades operativas?
i. Administrativas.
ii. Recursos Humanos
iii. Gestión financiera
iv. Gestión organizacional
En las fincas de los miembros de la organización 
3.5. ¿Considera que ha mejorado la productividad? ¿Por qué?
3.6. ¿Considera que han disminuido los costos de producción?
3.7. ¿Ha mejorado la calidad de los productos? ¿A qué se debe?
3.8. ¿Ha mejorado el precio de venta de esos productos?
3.9. ¿Qué técnicas utilizan principalmente los asociados para el manejo de residuos?
3.10. ¿Qué técnicas utilizan para el riego y conservación de fuentes hídricas?
4. Comercialización 
y logística
4.1. ¿Qué tipo de transportes utilizan sus asociados para transportar sus 
productos? (tracción animal, vehículos de dos ruedas, de cuatro, otros) 
169 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
¿Impacto de 
logística y 
comercialización?
4.2. ¿Hay suficiente capacidad de transporte en la zona? (Condición y disponibilidad 
de vehículos) ¿Qué costo tiene?
4.3. ¿Qué impacto cree que tiene el transporte en el precio de esos productos, en 
términos de tiempo y costos?
4.4. Sí le fuéramos a seguir el rastro a esos productos de principio (campo) a fin 
(consumidor), ¿Cómo sería ese proceso?
4.5. ¿A quién generalmente le venden los asociados la producción? (intermediario, 
exportador, procesador, mercado local)
4.6. ¿Qué tanto han variado los precios en el último año? ¿existe algún acuerdo de 
precios con los compradores?
4.7. ¿Qué estándares de calidad les exigen? 
4.8. ¿Por medio de Territorios de Oportunidad han logrado llegar a nuevos 
mercados o aliados comerciales? ¿A cuáles?
4.9. ¿Cómo se han visto afectados por la emergencia sanitaria del COVID 19? 
¿Cómo lo han afrontado? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
5. Desarrollo 
territorial y 
diálogo multinivel.
¿Cómo ha 
mejorado la 
comunicación 
entre los 
diferentes actores 
del territorio?
5.1. ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha mejorado la comunicación 
con otras asociaciones u organizaciones sociales presentes en la región?
5.2. Más allá de las iniciativas productivas de su asociación ¿Han participado en 
otras iniciativas comunitarias territoriales?
5.3. ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha construido una mejor 
relación con el sector privado? ¿Cómo era antes, como es ahora?
5.4. ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha generado una relación de 
confianza con las autoridades locales? ¿Cómo era antes, como es ahora?
5.5. ¿Ha existido alguna relación de la intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad 
con las que ha hecho el PDET?
5.6. ¿Considera que los conocimientos adquiridos en Territorios de Oportunidad 
pueden ser aplicados en la implementación de los PDET?
6. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
6.1. ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
6.2. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
6.3. ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA A ORGANIZACIONES DE PRODUCTORES VINCULADOS A ECONOMÍAS NO 
TRADICIONALES
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES EI.B. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA 
A ORGANIZACIONES DE PRODUCTORES 
VINCULADAS A ACTIVIDADES ECONÓMICAS 
NUEVAS, INNOVADORAS O NO TRADICIONALES
Duración:
1 hora
Beneficiarios del programa: Colectivos culturales, ecoturismo, gastronomía, joyería, textiles y otros.
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 170
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones, no existen respuestas buenas o malas, 
nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados 
para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos gravar la conversación para tener un 
registro y no perder la información? Sí No
1. Presentación 1.1. ¿Podría describirme brevemente la actividad que realiza su colectivo o su 
empresa?
1.2. ¿Desde hace cuánto tiempo se realiza? 
1.3. ¿Quiénes han participado tradicionalmente en esta actividad?
1.4. ¿Cuántas personas participan actualmente en la actividad o son miembros de 
este colectivo o empresa? ¿A qué se debe ese cambio?
2. Relación con el 
programa
¿Cómo ingresó al 
programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
2.1. ¿Me podría describir en sus palabras en que consiste el programa Territorios 
de Oportunidad?
2.2. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿Qué los animó 
a participar?
2.3. ¿Qué tipo de diagnóstico se realizó para seleccionar su actividad por parte del 
programa?
2.4. ¿Qué requisitos les solicitaron? ¿Qué compromisos adquirieron?
3. Proceso
¿En qué consistió 
la intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
3.1. ¿Qué etapas ha tenido el proceso de acompañamiento por parte de 
Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.2. ¿Quiénes han participado en dichas fases?
3.3. ¿Qué apoyos ha recibido su organización para mejorar sus capacidades 
operativas?
i. Administrativas (Mejoramiento procedimientos, misión, objetivos 
estratégicos, personería jurídica)
ii. Recursos humanos (descripción y manuales de funciones, procedimientos 
selección y vinculación asociados, capacitación para funciones específicas)
iii. Gestión financiera (sistemas de contabilidad y auditoría, elaboración 
reportes financieros, distribución utilidades)
iv. Gestión organizacional (planes estratégicos, planes de trabajo)
3.4. ¿Su actividad es o se ha vuelto viable económicamente?
3.5. ¿Han conseguido acceder a nuevos mercados o aliados comerciales a partir de 
la intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.6. ¿Han logrado tener o suscribir acuerdos o contratos de suministro o de 
comercialización? ¿Con quién(es)?
3.7. ¿Han propuesto o logrado alianzas con otras organizaciones similares para 
producir o comercializar juntas?
3.8. ¿Qué papel juegan los jóvenes en la actividad que realizan?
3.9. ¿La actividad que realizan qué tanto puede crecer en el mediano plazo, de 2 a 
4 años? (Escalable)
3.10. ¿La actividad que realiza puede ser replicada en otros lugares del 
municipio o en municipios similares? ¿Qué condiciones se necesitan para que 
sea posible? (Replicable)
3.11. Una vez termine el programa Territorios de Oportunidad ¿su actividad 
puede seguir adelante?, ¿qué condiciones necesitan para que así sea? 
(Sostenible)
3.12. ¿Cómo se han visto afectados por la emergencia sanitaria del COVID 19? 
¿Cómo lo han afrontado? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
4. Desarrollo 
territorial y 
diálogo multinivel
¿Cómo ha 
mejorado la 
4.1. ¿Considera que su actividad ha generado un mayor sentido de identidad y 
pertenencia al territorio? ¿Por qué?
4.2. ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha mejorado la comunicación 
con otras asociaciones u organizaciones sociales presentes en la región?
171 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
comunicación 
entre los 
diferentes actores 
del territorio?
4.3. ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha construido una mejor 
relación con el sector privado? ¿Cómo era antes, como es ahora?
4.4. ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha generado una relación de 
confianza con las autoridades locales? ¿Cómo era antes, como es ahora?
5. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
5.1 Cuáles son las principales fortalezas del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
5.2 ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
5.3 ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA A ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA DE COMUNICACIÓN PARA EL 
DESARROLLO
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES EI.C. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA 
A ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA 
VINCULADAS A ACTIVIDADES ECONÓMICAS DE 
COMUNICACIÓN PARA EL DESARROLLO
Duración:
1 hora
Beneficiarios del programa vinculados a producción digital y emisoras comunitarias
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones, no existen respuestas buenas o malas, 
nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados 
para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos gravar la conversación para tener un registro 
y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTAS
1. Presentación 1.1. Sí nos cuenta brevemente quien es usted y su formación.
1.2. ¿Cuándo surge el colectivo de comunicación al cual pertenece?
1.3. ¿Quiénes lo conformaron? ¿Con que objetivos?
1.4. ¿Cuántas personas participan actualmente del colectivo?
2. Relación con el 
Programa 
¿Cómo ingresó al 
programa?
2.1. ¿Me podría describir en sus palabras en que consiste el programa Territorios 
de Oportunidad?
2.2. ¿Cómo se enteró del programa Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿Qué los animó 
a participar?
2.3. ¿Qué tipo de diagnóstico se realizó para seleccionar su actividad por parte del 
programa?
2.4. ¿Qué requisitos les solicitaron? ¿Qué compromisos adquirieron?
3. Procesos 3.1. ¿Qué tipo de actividades de producción digital o comunicación han sido 
apoyadas por Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿En qué consistió el apoyo?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 172
¿En qué consistió 
la intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
3.2. En cuanto a contenidos de producción digital o comunicación como se han 
vinculado ustedes con los siguientes actores sociales:
i. Organizaciones de productores.
ii. Juntas de Acción Comunal.
iii. Organizaciones deportivas
iv. Organizaciones culturales
v. Organizaciones de turismo o gastronomía.
vi. Gobierno local.
vii. Otras organizaciones presentes en el municipio.
3.3. ¿Cómo han sido recibidos dichos contenidos por parte de la comunidad?
3.4. ¿Han logrado articularse o crear redes de trabajo con otras organizaciones 
que tienen un trabajo similar al de ustedes, aquí en el municipio o en el 
departamento?
3.5. ¿Cómo se han visto afectados por la emergencia sanitaria del COVID 19? 
¿Cómo lo han afrontado? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
4. Transformaciones 
en el territorio.
¿Qué cambios ha 
traído para la 
población la 
intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
4.1. A partir de la producción de contenidos digitales ¿Se han visibilizado nuevos 
liderazgos en el municipio? Nos puede dar algunos ejemplos.
4.2. ¿Se han fortalecido iniciativas comunitarias? ¿De qué manera? Nos puede dar 
un ejemplo.
4.3. ¿Se han desarrollado redes locales o regionales de comunicación?
4.4. ¿Qué papel han jugado los jóvenes en los procesos de producción digital? 
¿Considera que se han abierto nuevas posibilidades para los jóvenes de la 
región?
4.5. ¿Qué rol han tenido las mujeres en las iniciativas de producción digital? 
¿Considera que se han abierto nuevas posibilidades para las mujeres en la 
región?
4.6. ¿Considera que su actividad ha generado un mayor sentido de identidad y 
pertenencia al territorio? ¿Por qué?
4.7. ¿Las actividades de producción digital han mejorado la solidaridad en la 
comunidad? Nos puede dar algunos ejemplos.
4.8. ¿Qué papel ha jugado el sector privado en las actividades de producción digital 
y comunicación?
4.9. ¿Las actividades de producción digital han mejorado la confianza hacia las 
autoridades locales? ¿de qué forma?
4.10. ¿Qué iniciativas para la construcción de una cultura de paz y legalidad han 
sido apoyadas desde el colectivo de producción digital?
4.11. ¿El colectivo de comunicación ha cumplido algún papel en la difusión y 
discusión de los PDET en su municipio?
4.12. ¿Las actividades de producción digital y comunicación pueden crecer en el 
mediano plazo, de 2 a 4 años? (Escalable)
4.13. ¿Las actividades de producción digital y comunicación pueden ser 
replicada en otros municipios similares? ¿Qué condiciones se necesitan para 
que sea posible? (Replicable)
4.14. Una vez termine el programa Territorios de Oportunidad ¿la actividad de 
producción digital y comunicación puede seguir adelante?, ¿qué condiciones 
necesitan para que así sea? (Sostenible)
4.15. ¿Qué efectos prácticos ha tenido el trabajo desarrollado por ustedes en 
el colectivo, sobre las decisiones que se han tomado en su municipio en 
materia de políticas o programas de desarrollo socio-económico?
5. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
5.1. ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
5.2. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
5.3. ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
173 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUÍA PARA DE ENTREVISTA A JUNTAS DE ACCIÓN COMUNAL
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES E2. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA A 
JUNTAS DE ACCIÓN COMUNAL 
Duración:
1 hora
Beneficiarios del programa: participantes proyectos de infraestructura, Juntas de Acción Comunal, Veedurías 
ciudadanas
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de Oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones; no existen respuestas buenas o malas, 
nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados 
para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos gravar la conversación para tener un registro 
y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTA
1. Presentación 1.1. ¿A qué Junta de Acción Comunal pertenece? ¿Por quienes está conformada?
1.2. En sus palabras, ¿En qué consiste el programa Territorios de Oportunidad?
2. Diseño y 
planeación de 
obras de 
infraestructura
¿Cómo fue el 
proceso de 
priorización de la 
obra?
2.1. ¿Cuál o cuáles han sido las obras intervenidas por Territorios de Oportunidad 
en su vereda o su barrio? ¿Podemos visitarlas? (Los recorridos etnográficos a 
infraestructura dependen de la distancia, condiciones de seguridad y 
disponibilidad de transporte).
2.2. ¿Cómo se dio el contacto con el programa Territorios de Oportunidad?
2.3. ¿Por qué se priorizó esta obra de infraestructura?
2.4. ¿Qué papel cumplió su comunidad en la formulación del proyecto?
2.5. ¿Cómo era la vía (o el servicio) antes de la formulación del proyecto?
2.6. ¿Quiénes participaron en el diseño de la obra? (Profesionales Territorios de 
Oportunidad, Gobierno local, JAC)
3. Ejecución 
proyecto de 
infraestructura 
¿Cómo fue la 
ejecución del 
proyecto?
3.1. ¿En cuántas y cuáles etapas se planteó la ejecución del proyecto? 
3.2. ¿Qué papel cumplió la comunidad en la planeación, ejecución y/o veeduría del 
proyecto?
3.3. ¿Se realizó algún tipo de veeduría a la ejecución de la obra? ¿Quiénes la 
realizaron?
3.4. ¿Se realizó algún tipo de veeduría a la ejecución de la obra? ¿Quiénes la 
realizaron?
3.5. ¿Qué dificultades se presentaron durante la construcción de la obra? ¿Cómo 
se solucionaron?
3.6. ¿Qué papel cumplió el Gobierno local durante la ejecución de la obra?
3.7. ¿La obra cumplió con el diseño inicial del proyecto? (fue menos, o quizás se 
aumentó)
3.8. ¿Qué cambios trajo para su comunidad la ejecución de este proyecto?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 174
3.9. ¿Cómo o en qué medida han cambiado los tiempos de desplazamiento? ¿Han 
cambiado los medios de transporte? (tracción animal, vehículos de dos ruedas, 
de cuatro, camiones, otros).
3.10. ¿Se ha dado alguna variación en el costo del transporte (carga y 
pasajeros)? ¿Cuánto costaba antes de la obra, cuánto cuesta ahora?
3.11. ¿Se han dado cambios en la frecuencia del transporte?
3.12. ¿En qué medida la obra de infraestructura ha mejorado la 
comercialización de los productos de la región? ¿Cómo era antes, como es 
ahora? 
3.13. ¿La comunidad realiza alguna forma de mantenimiento de la obra? ¿Qué 
compromisos adquirió la comunidad al respecto?
4. Fortalecimiento 
comunitario
¿Cómo se 
fortaleció la 
comunidad a partir 
de la intervención?
4.1. ¿Qué otros proyectos comunitarios se han desarrollado con el apoyo de 
Territorios de Oportunidad?
4.2. ¿Qué actividades para el fortalecimiento de su Junta de Acción Comunal han 
sido realizadas por Territorios de Oportunidad?
4.3. ¿Qué aprendizajes trajo para su comunidad el trabajo con Territorios de 
Oportunidad? (conocimientos técnicos, de contabilidad, capacidad instalada).
5. Desarrollo 
territorial 
¿Qué cambios 
trajo la obra para 
la comunidad?
5.1 ¿La intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad generó una mayor relación 
de solidaridad y pertenencia en su comunidad? 
5.2 ¿Existe mayor presencia institucional a partir de los proyectos realizados?
5.3 ¿Considera que este tipo de proyectos pueden ser replicados en otros lugares 
del municipio, del departamento? ¿Qué se necesita para hacerlos posibles?
5.4 ¿Considera que la comunidad adquirió el conocimiento (administrativo, 
financiero, técnico) para realizar por sí misma obras de pequeña 
infraestructura?
6. Contexto
¿Qué aprendizajes 
trajo para la 
comunidad la 
intervención de 
TO?
6.1. ¿Considera que los aprendizajes del programa Territorio de Oportunidades 
pueden ser aplicados en la implementación de lo PDET?
6.2. ¿Considera que el aprendizaje que ha tenido la JAC puede contribuir al diseño 
de políticas locales?
6.3. ¿Cómo se han visto afectados en la JAC por la contingencia sanitaria del 
COVID 19? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
7. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
7.1 ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
7.2 ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
7.3 ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA A ALIADOS ESTRATÉGICOS
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES E3. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA A 
ALIADOS ESTRATÉGICOS
Duración 
1 hora
175 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Aliados comerciales de economías tradicionales y no tradicionales
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre el programa; no existen respuestas 
buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente 
van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos gravar la conversación para 
tener un registro y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTAS
1. Presentación 1.1. ¿Cuál es su formación y función en la empresa?
1.2. ¿A qué se dedica la empresa? ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva en el mercado?
2. Relación con el 
Programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidades
¿Relación con el 
programa?
2.1. ¿En sus palabras cómo definiría el programa Territorios de Oportunidad?
2.2. ¿Cómo se dio el contacto con el programa Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿Qué 
les llamó la atención? ¿Qué temores o inquietudes les despertó?
2.3. ¿Habían manejado anteriormente esa línea de negocios?
3. Desarrollo de 
capacidades.
¿Relación con 
asociaciones u 
organizaciones 
apoyadas?
3.1. ¿Con cuántas y cuáles asociaciones de productores trabaja actualmente en el 
marco del programa Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.2. ¿Había trabajado anteriormente en esas regiones? ¿Cuáles eran los principales 
temores y expectativas?
3.3. ¿Cómo fue el primer contacto con las asociaciones de productores? ¿Qué 
canales de comunicación han establecido?
3.4. ¿Cuáles eran las principales necesidades y limitaciones que tenían las 
asociaciones productivas?
3.5. ¿Cuáles eran las principales oportunidades o factores de éxito que 
identificaron?
3.6. ¿Qué tipo de apoyo ha brindado su empresa a las organizaciones para mejorar 
sus capacidades? (administrativas, financieras, gestión organizacional, recursos 
humanos)
4. Procesos
¿Cómo se ha 
desarrollado el 
proceso con los 
Aliados 
Estratégicos?
4.1. ¿A qué necesidades de su empresa ha dado respuesta el programa Territorios 
de Oportunidad?
4.2. ¿Considera que el programa Territorios de Oportunidad ha diversificado las 
actividades productivas de las regiones?
4.3. ¿Se han dado procesos de innovación? ¿Nos puede dar un ejemplo?
4.4. ¿Considera que el programa ha permitido la valoración de activos culturales y 
ambientales por parte de las comunidades?
4.5. ¿La alianza comercial con los productores ha permitido el acceso a nuevos 
mercados?
4.6. ¿Qué estándares de calidad exigen los mercados? ¿Los productores pueden 
cumplir con dichos requisitos?
4.7. ¿Cómo se han visto afectados por la contingencia sanitaria del COVID 19? 
¿Cómo lo han solucionado? ¿Qué aprendizajes ha traído?
5. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
5.1. ¿Considera que la alianza productiva es sostenible en el tiempo? ¿Por qué?
5.2. ¿Considera que la alianza productiva es escalable? ¿Qué condiciones son 
necesarias?
5.3. ¿Considera que la alianza productiva es replicable a otras regiones del país? 
¿Qué condiciones son necesarias?
5.4. ¿Qué papel cumple el sector privado en la construcción de una cultura de la 
paz y legalidad en las regiones?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 176
5.5. ¿Considera que la intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha mejorado la 
confianza entre las comunidades de regiones apartadas y el sector privado?
5.6. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría al programa Territorios de Oportunidad para 
mejorar su intervención?
5.7. ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA A FUNCIONARIOS DE GOBIERNOS TERRITORIALES
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES E4. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA A 
FUNCIONARIOS DE GOBIERNOS TERRITORIALES
Duración:
1 hora
Funcionarios de las Secretarías de Desarrollo, Secretarías de Agricultura (puede ser individual o grupal) de 
Alcaldías y Gobernaciones
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre el Programa; no existen respuestas 
buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente 
van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos gravar la conversación para 
tener un registro y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTA
1. Presentación 1.1. ¿Cuál es su formación y cargo que desempeña?
2. Relación con el 
Programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad
¿Cómo se 
estableció el 
vínculo con 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
2.1. ¿Me podría decir en sus propias palabras en qué consiste el programa 
Territorios de Oportunidad?
2.2. ¿Cómo describiría los servicios de Territorios de Oportunidad?
2.3. ¿Cuál ha sido su relación con el Programa? ¿Cuánto lleva? ¿Qué mecanismo usa 
para establecer comunicación con el Programa? ¿Existen instancias de 
coordinación entre el Gobierno territorial y Territorios de Oportunidad?
2.4. ¿Cómo se acordó el trabajo entre su entidad y el Programa?
3. Desarrollo 
Económico
¿Cómo ha 
contribuido 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad al 
3.1. ¿Cuál es la principal actividad económica del corredor, municipio, región?
3.2. ¿El programa “Territorios de oportunidad" ha apoyado estas actividades 
económicas? ¿De qué forma? (asistencia técnica, mejora de calidad, acuerdos 
comerciales, acceso nuevos mercados)
177 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
desarrollo 
económico del 
municipio?
3.3. ¿El programa “Territorios de oportunidad” ha diversificado las actividades 
productivas en el municipio? ¿En qué actividades? (turismo, gastronomía, 
deporte, producción digital)
3.4. ¿Cómo fue el proceso para identificar estas nuevas actividades productivas? 
¿Qué papel cumplió la comunidad en dicho proceso?
3.5. ¿Cómo se ha vinculado el sector privado en las actividades productivas 
tradicionales y nuevas?
3.6. En su opinión, ¿cuáles son los resultados de la intervención de CDLO? (¿Han 
mejorado las productividades, las ventas, los volúmenes comercializados?)
4. Desarrollo de 
Capacidades
¿Apoyo para 
desarrollo 
económico por 
parte del 
programa?
4.1. ¿Los productores de su municipio están organizados en asociaciones? ¿Cuáles 
son las principales? ¿Qué ventajas o desventajas encuentra en los modelos 
asociativos?
4.2. ¿Qué tipo de apoyo han recibido las asociaciones desde el programa 
Territorios de Oportunidad? ¿El Gobierno local ha participado en dicho 
proceso?
4.3. ¿Considera que la intervención de Territorios de Oportunidad ha mejorado la 
confianza en la comunidad y con relación a las autoridades locales
5. Provisión de 
bienes y servicios
¿Dotación de 
bienes y servicios 
apoyados por 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
5.1. ¿En su municipio se han desarrollado procesos comunitarios para dotación de 
bienes y servicios apoyados por “Territorios de oportunidad”? ¿Qué tipo de 
bienes y servicios?
5.2. ¿Por qué se escogió esta obra frente a otras posibles? ¿Cómo fue la 
participación de la comunidad para escoger esta obra? ¿Qué mecanismos de 
participación se utilizaron? ¿Quiénes participaron?
5.3. ¿Cómo fue la participación del Gobierno local en la priorización, planeación, 
ejecución y mantenimiento de la obra?
5.4. ¿Cómo fue la articulación con proyectos departamentales, regionales y 
nacionales?
6. Diálogo Multinivel
¿Qué efecto han 
tenido las 
estrategias de 
comunicación 
apoyadas por 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
6.1. ¿Qué estrategias de comunicación a implementado “Territorios de 
oportunidad” en su municipio?
6.2. ¿Cómo es la participación del Gobierno local en las iniciativas de comunicación? 
¿Tiene un espacio o programa de divulgación?
6.3. ¿Qué cambios ha traído esta iniciativa para la participación comunitaria y 
surgimiento de nuevos liderazgos?
6.4. ¿Considera que estas iniciativas de comunicación han contribuido a construir 
una visión compartida del desarrollo territorial? (De qué forma, nos puede dar 
un ejemplo)
7. Desarrollo 
Territorial 
¿Cómo ha 
contribuido el 
programa para los 
planes de 
desarrollo 
territorial del 
municipio?
7.1. ¿Qué aprendizajes puede tener el programa Territorios de Oportunidad para 
la implementación de los PDET y PNIS? (metodológico, operativo, conceptual)
7.2. ¿En qué medida los desarrollados por Territorios de Oportunidad han 
contribuido a la construcción de una cultura de paz y legalidad en el municipio?
7.3. ¿Cómo se ha visto afectado el municipio por la emergencia sanitaria del COVID 
19? ¿Qué acciones han tomado? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
8. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
8.1. ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
8.2. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 178
8.3. ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA A FUNCIONARIOS DEL GOBIERNO NACIONAL
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES E5. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA A 
FUNCIONARIOS DEL GOBIERNO NACIONAL 
Duración:
45 minutos
Participantes: Agencia de Renovación del Territorio, Alta Consejería para el Posconflicto
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones, no existen respuestas buenas o malas, 
nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados 
para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un 
registro y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTAS
1. Presentación 1.1. ¿Cuál es su formación y cargo que desempeña?
2. Institucional 2.1. ¿Cuál es el objetivo y funciones de su institución?
2.2. ¿Qué programas desarrollan actualmente en las regiones- corredores 
priorizados por CDLO?
2.3. ¿Qué tanto ha variado la situación económica, política y de seguridad en los 
últimos tres años?
3. Articulación con 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad
¿Cómo ha sido la 
articulación con el 
programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
3.1. ¿Me podría decir en sus propias palabras en qué consiste el programa 
Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.2. ¿Cómo describiría los servicios de Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.3. ¿Cuál ha sido su relación con el Programa? ¿Cuánto lleva? 
3.4. ¿Qué mecanismo usa para establecer comunicación con el Programa? ¿Existen 
instancias de coordinación entre el Gobierno Nacional y Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
3.5. ¿Tienen proyectos comunes entre su entidad y el programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
3.6. ¿Cómo fue la participación desde su entidad en la priorización, planeación, 
ejecución de los proyectos de Territorios de Oportunidad?
3.7. ¿Cómo se acordó el trabajo entre su entidad y Territorios de Oportunidad?
4. Aprendizajes del 
Programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad 
¿Qué aprendizajes 
han tenido por 
parte del 
4.1. Desde su perspectiva que tan pertinentes son las intervenciones de Territorios 
de Oportunidad con:
i. Asociaciones de productores
ii. Desarrollo de economías creativas
iii. Provisión de bienes y servicios públicos
iv. Iniciativas de comunicación para el desarrollo
4.2. El abordaje metodológico, operativo y conceptual utilizado por territorios de 
Oportunidad podría fortalecer algunos de los siguientes programas:
179 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
programa para los 
planes de 
desarrollo 
territorial?
i. Planes de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (PDET)
ii. Plan Nacional Integral de Sustitución de cultivos ilícitos (PNIS)
iii. Plan Integral Municipal y Comunitarios de Sustitución y Desarrollo 
Alternativo (PISDA)
4.3. ¿En qué medida los desarrollados por Territorios de Oportunidad han 
contribuido a la construcción de una cultura de paz y legalidad en el municipio?
4.4. ¿Cómo se ha visto afectada la labor de su entidad por la contingencia sanitaria 
del COVID 19? ¿Cómo se han visto afectadas las regiones priorizadas?
4.5. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría al programa Territorios de Oportunidad?
5. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
5.1. ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad?
5.2. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
5.3. ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA ENTREVISTA A FUNCIONARIOS TERRITORIALES DE CDLO
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES E6. GUIA PARA ENTREVISTA SEMI-ESTRUCTURADA A 
FUNCIONARIOS TERRITORIALES DE CDLO 
Duración:
1 hora
Enlaces territoriales de CDLO
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones, no existen respuestas buenas o malas, 
nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y solamente van a ser usados 
para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos grabar la conversación para tener un 
registro y no perder la información? Sí No
SECCIÓN PREGUNTAS
1. Presentación 1.1. ¿Cuál es su formación y trayectoria profesional?
1.2. ¿Cómo se vinculó al programa Territorios de Oportunidad?
1.3. ¿Cuál es su rol o función específica en CDLO?
2. Llegada a 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad a la 
Región 
2.1. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo llega el programa a la región?
2.2. ¿Cuáles corredores fueron priorizados? ¿Por qué?
2.3. ¿Qué diferencia existe entre estos corredores y las demás veredas del 
municipio?
2.4. ¿Cuál es el contexto general del corredor geográfico en términos de desarrollo 
económico, social y condiciones de seguridad?
3. Desarrollo 
Económico
3.1. Cuando Territorios de Oportunidad llegó al territorio, ¿qué tipo de diagnóstico 
realizó?
3.2. ¿Cuáles iniciativas fueron priorizadas? ¿Cuáles fueron descartadas? ¿Por qué?
3.3. ¿Qué actividades económicas tradicionales fueron priorizadas? ¿Por qué?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 180
3.4. ¿Bajo cuáles criterios ha actuado el programa para diversificar las actividades 
económicas de la región?
3.5. ¿En qué medida el programa permitió la valoración de activos culturales y 
ambientales presentes en la región?
3.6. ¿Qué actividades ha realizado Territorios de Oportunidad para fortalecer las 
capacidades de las organizaciones sociales que apoya?
3.7. ¿Cómo se ha vinculado el sector privado en dichas iniciativas? ¿Qué dificultades 
se han presentado? ¿Qué oportunidades se han aprovechado?
3.8. ¿Cómo se ha vinculado los Gobiernos locales, Departamental y Nacional con 
los proyectos desarrollados por Territorios de Oportunidad?
4. Provisión de 
bienes y servicios
4.1. ¿En el corredor geográfico se han desarrollado procesos comunitarios para 
dotación de bienes y servicios apoyados por Territorios de oportunidad? 
¿Qué tipo de bienes y servicios? ¿En qué medida mejoro el acceso o 
cobertura al servicio?
4.2. ¿Cómo fueron priorizados? ¿Qué papel cumplió la comunidad?
4.3. ¿Cómo ha sido la coordinación inter institucional con el gobierno local, 
departamental y nacional?
4.4. ¿En qué medida el proceso logró el fortalecimiento de las organizaciones 
comunitarias? ¿Qué tanta apropiación tiene la comunidad de la obra realizada?
5. Diálogo multinivel 5.1. ¿Qué estrategias de comunicación ha implementado Territorios de 
Oportunidad en el corredor geográfico seleccionado? ¿Por qué se escogió esta 
iniciativa?
5.2. ¿Qué medios de comunicación se han fortalecido? ¿Quiénes los conforman? 
¿Qué tipo de apoyo (técnico, financiero) han recibido por parte de “Territorios 
de oportunidad”?
5.3. ¿Qué tipo de contenidos producen? Nos puede dar algunos ejemplos.
5.4. ¿Qué tanta libertad de expresión tiene los grupos de opinión en los debates 
públicos?
5.5. ¿Se han visibilizado nuevos liderazgos (sociales, económicos, políticos) a partir 
de estas formas de comunicación?
5.6. ¿Se han fortalecido iniciativas comunitarias territoriales? Nos puede dar un 
ejemplo.
5.7. ¿Ha mejorado la confianza de la comunidad con los entes territoriales, el 
sector privado o el Gobierno Nacional?
6. Desarrollo 
Territorial
6.1. Considera que los proyectos apoyados por Territorios de oportunidad son: 
sostenibles, escalables, replicables. ¿Por qué?
6.2. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas de “Territorios de oportunidad” pueden ser 
aplicadas en planes de desarrollo territorial? (conceptuales, metodológicas, 
operativas)
6.3. ¿Considera que los proyectos de “Territorios de oportunidad” pueden ser 
replicados en otros programas del orden nacional? (PDET, PNIS PISDA)
6.4. ¿Cómo se ha visto afectado el programa por la emergencia sanitaria del COVID 
19? ¿Qué acciones han tomado? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
7. Recomendaciones 
y cierre
7.1. ¿Cuáles son los principales retos que enfrenta Territorios de Oportunidad 
para el último año de operación?
7.2. ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo que queda 
de implementación?
7.3. ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una vez que 
salga el programa?
181 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUÍA PARA GRUPO FOCAL CON ORGANIZACIONES BENEFICIARIAS DE CDLO
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES GF7. GUIA PARA GRUPO FOCAL CON 
ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA 
BENEFICIARIAS DE CDLO 
Duración:
2 horas
Beneficiarios del programa como miembros de organizaciones de productores, Juntas de Acción Comunal, 
colectivos de producción digital, colectivos culturales o deportivos
Mi nombre es…. y hago parte de la actividad MEL/ USAID. Actualmente nos encontramos realizando una 
evaluación independiente sobre el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”. Para nosotros es muy 
importante conocer sus percepciones, opiniones y recomendaciones sobre este Programa; no existen 
respuestas buenas o malas, nos interesa conocer su experiencia. Sus datos y opiniones son confidenciales y 
solamente van a ser usados para efectos de la investigación. ¿Podemos comenzar? ¿Podemos gravar la 
conversación para tener un registro y no perder la información? Sí No 
1. Presentación de los 
participantes
1.1 Me gustaría que iniciáramos presentándonos, el nombre, de qué vereda 
provienen, a qué asociación u organización pertenecen, y qué es lo que más 
les gusta de su municipio.
2. Antecedentes 2.1. ¿Para ustedes qué es el programa “Territorios de oportunidad”?
2.2. ¿Cómo participan en el programa? ¿Cuánto tiempo llevan?
2.3. ¿Cómo se enteraron del programa “Territorios de oportunidad”?
3. Desarrollo 
Económico
¿Cuáles han sido 
los aportes de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad al 
desarrollo 
económico del 
municipio?
3.1. ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades económicas en este municipio (en 
esta vereda)? ¿Cuál es su principal fuente de ingresos actualmente?
3.2. ¿Cuáles son las principales actividades económica del municipio? ¿Qué 
porcentaje de la población se dedica a esas actividades? ¿Desde hace cuánto 
tiempo es la principal actividad económica del municipio?
3.3. ¿El programa “Territorios de oportunidad" ha apoyado estas actividades 
económicas? ¿De qué forma? (asistencia técnica, mejora de calidad, acuerdos 
comerciales, nuevos mercados)
3.4. ¿El programa ha facilitado algún tipo de infraestructura productiva? (centros 
de acopio, beneficio, post cosecha, transporte)
3.5. ¿El programa “Territorios de oportunidad” ha diversificado las actividades 
productivas en el municipio? ¿En qué actividades? (turismo, gastronomía, 
deporte, producción digital)
3.6. ¿Cómo fue el proceso para identificar estas nuevas actividades productivas? 
¿Qué papel cumplió la comunidad en dicho proceso?
3.7. ¿Cómo se ha vinculado el sector privado en las actividades productivas 
tradicionales y nuevas?
3.8. ¿Qué participación han tenido los jóvenes en las actividades productivas 
apoyadas por “Territorios de oportunidad”?
3.9. ¿Qué participación han tenido las mujeres en las actividades productivas 
apoyadas por “Territorios de oportunidad”?
3.10. RESULTADOS: ¿se han incrementado sus ingresos? ¿Por qué sí o no?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 182
4. Desarrollo de 
capacidades
¿En qué medida la 
intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad ha 
fortalecido a las 
organizaciones y 
asociaciones 
locales?
4.1. ¿Usted hace parte de alguna asociación? ¿Qué es lo bueno de estar 
asociado? ¿Qué es lo malo de estar asociado?
4.2. ¿Qué apoyo a recibido por parte de “Territorios de oportunidad” para 
fortalecer las capacidades operativas de su asociación?
i. Administrativas (Mejoramiento procedimientos, misión, objetivos 
estratégicos, personería jurídica)
ii. Recursos humanos (descripción y manuales de funciones, 
procedimientos selección y vinculación asociados, capacitación para 
funciones específicas)
iii. Gestión financiera (sistemas de contabilidad y auditoría, elaboración 
reportes financieros, distribución utilidades)
iv. Gestión organizacional (planes estratégicos, planes de trabajo
4.3. ¿Considera que la intervención de “Territorios de oportunidad” ha 
mejorado la confianza entre los asociados? ¿Ha mejorado la confianza con la 
comunidad? ¿Nos puede dar un ejemplo?
4.4. ¿Alianzas o acuerdos entre asociaciones similares?
5. Provisión de
bienes y servicios
¿Qué efecto ha 
tenido la 
intervención de 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad en 
proveer bienes y 
servicios a la 
población? 
5.1. ¿En su municipio se han desarrollado procesos comunitarios para dotación 
de bienes y servicios apoyados por “Territorios de oportunidad”? ¿Qué tipo 
de bienes y servicios?
5.2. ¿Por qué se escogió esta obra frente a otras posibles? ¿Cómo fue la 
participación de la comunidad para escoger esta obra? ¿Qué mecanismos de 
participación se utilizaron? ¿Quiénes participaron?
5.3. ¿Qué papel cumplió la comunidad en el diseño y ejecución de la obra?
5.4. ¿Qué aprendizajes tuvo la organización a partir de la ejecución de la obra? 
(Técnicos, administrativos, contabilidad, interventoría)
5.5. ¿Qué interlocución tuvieron con los entes territoriales (Alcaldía, 
Gobernación) y con el Gobierno Nacional (ART, Plan 50/51)?
6. Diálogo Multinivel
¿Qué efectos ha 
tenido la 
intervención de 
comunicaciones 
de Territorios de 
Oportunidad 
6.1. ¿Qué estrategias de comunicación ha implementado “Territorios de 
oportunidad” en su municipio?
6.2. ¿Qué medios de comunicación se han fortalecido? ¿Quiénes los conforman? 
¿Qué tipo de apoyo (técnico, financiero) han recibido por parte de 
“Territorios de oportunidad”?
6.3. ¿Qué tipo de contenidos producen? Nos puede dar algunos ejemplos.
6.4. ¿Qué tanta libertad de expresión tiene los grupos de opinión en los debates 
públicos?
6.5. ¿Se han visibilizado nuevos liderazgos (sociales, económicos, políticos) a 
partir de estas formas de comunicación?
6.6. ¿Se han fortalecido iniciativas comunitarias territoriales? Nos puede dar un 
ejemplo.
6.7. ¿Se han visibilizado o fortalecido nuevos sectores económicos en su 
municipio? Nos puede dar un ejemplo.
6.8. ¿Se han desarrollado redes locales o regionales de comunicación? ¿Cómo ha 
sido dicho proceso?
6.9. ¿Ha mejorado la confianza de la comunidad con los entes territoriales, el 
sector privado o el Gobierno Nacional?
7. Desarrollo 
Territorial
¿Qué aportes ha 
tenido Territorios 
de Oportunidad 
7.1. ¿Qué lecciones aprendidas de “Territorios de oportunidad” pueden ser 
aplicadas en planes de desarrollo territorial? (conceptuales, metodológicas, 
operativas)
7.2. ¿Considera que los proyectos de “Territorios de oportunidad” pueden ser 
replicados en otros programas del orden nacional? (PDET, PNIS PISDA 
7.3. ¿Cómo se ha visto afectada su organización por la emergencia sanitaria del 
COVID 19? ¿Cómo ha sido afectado su municipio? ¿Qué acciones han 
tomado? ¿Qué aprendizajes han tenido?
183 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
para el desarrollo 
territorial?
8. Recomendaciones 8.1 ¿Cuáles son las principales fortalezas de Territorios de Oportunidad?
8.2 ¿Qué recomendaciones haría para mejorar programa en el tiempo 
que queda de implementación?
8.3 ¿Qué acciones se pueden tomar para el proyecto sea sostenible una 
vez que salga el programa?
GUÍA PARA TALLER DE CARTOGRAFÍA SOCIAL CON ORGANIZACIONES BENEFICIARIAS DE CDLO
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD (CDLO)
V1
29/12/2020
ACTORES TC8. GUIA PARA TALLER DE CARTOGRAFÍA SOCIAL 
CON ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA 
BENEFICIARIAS DE CDLO 
Duración:
2 horas 
Beneficiarios del programa como Miembros de Asociaciones de productores, Juntas de Acción Comunal, 
producción digital y colectivas culturales o deportivos
Descripción 
Una vez terminado el grupo focal se ofrece un refrigerio y se da un descanso de quince minutos.
Se retoma la actividad presentando cuatro mapas de los corredores geográficos seleccionados.
Los participantes se dividen en cuatro grupos: infraestructura, asociaciones productivas, colectivos culturales 
o deportivos, y producción digital.
A cada grupo se le reparten marcadores de diferentes colores y calcomanías que representan diferentes 
actividades relacionadas con el programa Territorios de Oportunidad.
A cada grupo será acompañado por un facilitador y se le darán las siguientes instrucciones según sea el caso 
GRUPO PREGUNTAS
1. Infraestructura 1.1. ¿Dónde están ubicadas las obras de infraestructura?
1.2. ¿A qué tipo de infraestructura corresponden?
1.3. ¿Cuántas y cuáles veredas se ven beneficiadas por la obra?
1.4. ¿Aproximadamente cuántas familias o personas se ven beneficiadas con la 
obra?
1.5. ¿Cuánto tiempo tardaban el trayecto desde la vereda hasta el municipio 
antes de la obra?
1.6. ¿Cuánto tiempo les toma ahora que la obra fue concluida?
1.7. ¿Existen variaciones en épocas de lluvia o de verano, expréselo en tiempo 
(antes y después) o vías alternas si es el caso?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 184
1.8. ¿Pueden transitar otros medios de transporte que antes no lo hacían?
1.9. ¿Ha mejorado la frecuencia de transporte público?
2. Asociaciones de 
productores
2.1. ¿Dónde están ubicados los productores y que tipo de productos?
2.2. ¿Dónde están ubicadas las asociaciones de productores?
2.3. ¿Dónde están ubicados los centros de acopio?
2.4. ¿Qué tipo de transporte se utiliza para llevar los productos al centro de 
acopio?
2.5. ¿Qué impacto tiene el transporte en el precio del producto?
2.6. ¿Qué tipo de empaque utiliza para la carga?
2.7. ¿Qué tanto ha variado la producción en los últimos años: 2018, 2019, 2020?
2.8. ¿Cuáles son los principales mercados de los productos?
2.9. ¿Qué cantidad de producto se requiere salir a los mercados?
3. Colectivos 
culturales, turismo y 
deportes
3.1. ¿Dónde están ubicados los miembros del colectivo?
3.2. ¿Cuántas personas lo conforman? ¿Genero? ¿edades?
3.3. ¿Cómo ha variado el número de participantes en los últimos años: 2018, 
2019, 2020?
3.4. Turismo: ¿Cuáles son los principales destinos turísticos del municipio? ¿Han 
variado en los últimos años?
3.5. Turismo: ¿De dónde vienen los turistas, lugar de procedencia? 
3.6. Turismo: ¿Qué variación han tenido los turistas en los últimos años: 2018, 
2019, 2020?
3.7. Gastronomía: ¿Dónde ofrecen los servicios de gastronomía (restaurantes)? 
3.8. Gastronomía: ¿De dónde provienen los ingredientes que utilizan?
3.9. Gastronomía: ¿Quiénes son los principales consumidores? ¿Qué variación se 
ha dado en los últimos años: 2018, 2019, 2020?
3.10. Deportes: ¿Cuántos torneos han realizado en los últimos años?
3.11. Deportes: ¿Cuántas personas de la comunidad asisten a los torneos, de 
dónde vienen (veredas)?
3.12. ¿Qué variación ha tenido la asistencia de la comunidad en los últimos 
años: 2018, 2019, 2020?
3.13. Deportes: ¿Han participado en torneos en otros municipios o ciudades? 
¿Cuáles? ¿Cuándo?
4. Producción digital 4.1. ¿Quiénes han participado en la iniciativa de producción digital? 
i. Colectivos culturales
ii. Deportivos 
iii. Opinión
iv. Gobierno local
v. Productores
vi. Otros, cuales.
4.2. ¿Con qué tipo de producto? ¿Cada cuánto se realiza?
4.3. ¿Qué tanto ha variado la producción digital en los últimos años: 2018, 2019, 
2020?
4.4. ¿A través de qué medios se difunden los contenidos que se producen?
4.5. ¿Dónde se escuchan/ ven principalmente los contenidos que ustedes 
producen?
4.6. ¿Cuáles productos han tenido una mayor aceptación? ¿Por qué?
4.7. ¿Han establecido contacto con otros colectivos de producción digital? (a 
nivel municipal, regional, nacional o internacional)
5. Cierre 5.1 Una vez finalizado el ejercicio se reúnen todos los participantes nuevamente, 
cada grupo realiza una presentación del ejercicio (10 minutos por grupo).
185 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
GUÍA PARA RECORRIDOS ETNOGRÁFICOS A ACTIVIDADES DE CDLO EJECUTADAS
EVALUACIÓN DE DESEMPEÑO
PROGRAMA TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD
V1
29/12/2020
RE9. GUIA PARA RECORRIDOS ETNOGRÁFICOS A 
ACTIVIDADES DE CDLO EJECUTADAS POR 
ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA 
Duración:
8 horas
Descripción
A partir de las entrevistas semi estructuradas a funcionarios locales y enlace territorial CDLO, así como los 
grupos focales con diferentes beneficiarios se representa en un mapa del municipio las principales actividades 
del Programa Territorios de Oportunidad. 
Tomando como base dicha representación espacial se diseñan tres rutas donde se llevará a cabo los recorridos 
etnográficos, teniendo el acompañamiento de una persona de la región que servirá como “guía” durante el 
recorrido. Se deben plantear cuatro recorridos, uno para asociaciones productivas, otro para colectivos 
culturales y deportivos, un recorrido por obras de infraestructura, finalmente uno para producción digital. La 
idea es que en cada recorrido se realice la entrevista semi estructurada “in situ”. 
Información de análisis especial
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 186
Los recorridos etnográficos son muy importantes para obtener la información que servirá de insumo para el 
análisis espacial de la región. Durante el recorrido se tomarán fotos de los diferentes aspectos que se vayan 
encontrando: placas huella, canales, centros de acopio, recorridos turísticos, proceso de cocina y gastronomía, 
asistir a un a la producción de un programa de producción digital. Es importante que la cámara tenga activado 
el GPS para que la información quede adecuadamente georreferenciada para su posterior análisis.
Entrevistas etnográficas
Durante el recorrido se realizarán entrevistas etnográficas, tantas como sea posible, las cuales por definición 
no son estructuradas, parten de la observación e interacción directa entre el investigador y participante casual 
en su contexto natural. Son entrevistas cortas, no más de 10 minutos, que tratan sobre los cambios que 
perciben a partir de las actividades del programa. 
Los participantes pueden ser: vecinos de las obras de infraestructura, agricultores que han participado en el 
programa, participantes de los colectivos culturales, asistentes a los eventos deportivos, transportadores, 
habitantes de los centros poblados, pequeños comerciantes, docentes, población en general que puede no 
tener una relación directa con el programa pero que habita en su zona de influencia. Puede ser de utilidad 
georreferenciar la entrevista vinculándola con una fotografía.
Toda la información recolectada será clasificada y ordenada en un software de información geográfica que nos 
permitirá visualizar diferentes rutas en el corredor geográfico seleccionado, lo que se conoce como un “story 
map”.
187 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
QUANTITATIVE INSTRUMENTS
ENCUESTA A DIRECTIVOS DE ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA 
DATOS DEL ENCUESTADOR / SUPERVISOR / COORDINADOR
Entrevistador: C.C.:
Supervisor: C.C.:
Coordinador: C.C.:
Fecha de Supervisión: / / 2021 Fecha de Revisión: / / 2021
Revisor de Critica Revisada ___ Tabulada ___ Rev. Final ___
Nombre: Supervisión: Presencial 1 Directa Personal 2 
IPSOS - NAPOLEÓN FRANCO
21-011809-01-03 -Territorios de Oportunidades V2.5
Abril 2020
ID
Hora de inicio 
(formato 
militar):
Hora de 
terminación
(formato 
militar):
Fecha de
la encuesta:
DD MM AA 
21
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 188
C.C.: Directa Tel. 3 No supervisada 4 
Encuesta verificada Sí 1 No 2
RESULTADO
Anulado 1 No contactado 4
Nombre: Observado 2 No colabora 5 
C.C. Efectivo 3
Fecha Verificación: TIPO VERIFICACIÓN Presencial 1 Telefónica 2 
(PROG: NO MOSTRAR AL ENCUESTADOR, TRAER DEL LLCC EL NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
(PROG: NO MOSTRAR AL ENCUESTADOR, TRAER DEL TIPO Y REGION (REGION ES VARIABLE DE 
CONTROL DE CUOTAS))
189 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Buenos días, tardes, mi nombre es (ENC MENCIONE SU NOMBRE), y trabajo en estudio para IPSOS, una empresa privada dedicada a la investigación de mercados y de 
opinión pública. Actualmente nos encontramos desarrollando un estudio sobre las organizaciones que han participado en el programa Territorios de Oportunidad, para esto 
requerimos información de la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN), Usted fue escogido al ser un directivo o líder reconocido de esta 
organización, su aporte será valioso para los propósitos de la investigación, recuerde que todas las preguntas que se le realizará indagan sobre la visión de la organización, no 
sobre su propia opinión. Su participación es voluntaria, su identidad y las respuestas suministradas serán de carácter confidencial, ya que, los datos se utilizarán únicamente 
para fines estadísticos, Garantizamos confidencialidad de su identidad, de acuerdo al código de ética de ESOMAR y de la ley de Protección de Datos por los cuales nos 
regimos, usted podría ser contactado posteriormente a fines de control de calidad. Esta encuesta puede ser grabada o monitoreada como control interno de calidad. Su 
participación es muy valiosa porque contribuirá a la mejora de los programas de desarrollo territorial en Colombia, enfocado en el fortalecimiento de organizaciones como la 
suya. Por favor le agradecería que me diera unos 60 minutos de su tiempo para responder unas preguntas.
Para cualquier inquietud puede comunicarse con Cristina Querubín, correo Cristina.Querubin@ipsos.com en Bogotá.
F0. Con estas precisiones ¿acepta participar en la presente encuesta? (RU)
1. Sí 2. No (ENC: AGRADEZCA Y TERMINE) (PROG: TERMINE)
F01. ¿Usted acepta ser grabado en esta encuesta? (RU)
1. Sí 2. No (PROG: DETENGA EL GRABADOR)
CAPÍTULO I. PERFIL DEL DIRIGENTE DEL ENCUESTADO
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 190
I.I. Verificación del perfil 
Q101. Usted actualmente ocupa algún cargo directivo o de liderazgo 
dentro de esta organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN), (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI RESPONDE EN Q101 COD 2, TERMINE) 
I.II. Identificación y lugar de vivienda del encuestado
Q102. ¿Cuál es su nombre completo (PROG: ABIERTA) (ENC: LEA)
1. Primer nombre 2. Segundo nombre 
(PROG: OPCIONAL) 3. Primer apellido 4. Segundo Apellido 
(PROG: OPCIONAL)
 
Q103. ¿Cuál es su identidad de género? (ENC: LEA) (RU) 
1. Hombre 2. Mujer 89. Otra 
Q104. Cuántos años cumplidos tiene:
1.______ (PROG: CAMPO NUMERICO, RANGO DE 18 EN ADELANTE, SI RESPONDE MENOS DE 18, TERMINAR LA ENCUESTA) (ENC: SI ES MENOR DE 18 AÑOS 
AGRADEZCA Y TERMINE)
Q105. En dónde vive usted actualmente (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) 
191 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Departamento 
(RU)
(PROG: MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE DEPARTAMENTOS) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL 
DEPARTAMENTO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
2. Municipio (RU) (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL DEPARTAMENTO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q105.1, MUESTRE 
DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE MUNICIPIOS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE DEPARTAMENTO) (ENC: 
SELECCIONE EL MUNICIPIO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
Q106. Usted habita en: (ENC: LEA) (RU) 
1. Cabecera municipal 2. Resto (zonas rurales-centros poblados y rural disperso)
Q107. Hace cuánto tiempo vive en el municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q105.2) __________ (PROG: NUMERICA, ACEPTAR DE CERO “0” EN ADELANTE. NO 
ACEPTAR VALORES MAYORES AL REGISTRADO EN Q104) (ENC: PREGUNTE EL TIEMPO EN AÑOS)
Q108. De acuerdo con su cultura, pueblo o rasgos físicos, usted es o se reconoce como (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Indígena 2. Gitano(a) 
(ROM)
3. Negro (a), Mulato (a) 
(afrodescendiente), 
Afrocolombiano
4. Raizal del 
archipiélago de San 
Andrés, Providencia y 
Santa Catalina
5. Palenquero 
(a) de San 
Basilio
90. 
Ninguno 
Q109. ¿Cuál es el título o diploma de mayor nivel educativo que Usted ha recibido? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU): 
90. Ninguno 1. Primaria 2. Bachiller 3. Técnico o tecnológico 4. Universitario 5. Postgrado (especialización, maestría, doctorado) 
CAPÍTULO II. CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 192
II.1. Cargo del encuestado dentro de la organización
(ENC: LEA) Previamente, me dijo que usted es directivo o líder de esta organización, ahora cuénteme… 
Q201. Específicamente, ¿cuál es el cargo directivo que tiene dentro de esta organización? (ENC: LEA) (RU):
Presidente/Gerente/Director
2. Representante Legal 3. 
Vicepresidente
4. Secretario 
General
5. 
Fiscal/Auditor
6. 
Tesorero
89. Otro cargo 
directivo.
¿Cuál? 
Q202. Desde qué año ejerce este cargo: (ENC: SI LO HA EJERCIDO MÁS DE UNA VEZ, PREGUNTE POR LA ÚLTIMA VEZ QUE LO EJERCIÓ) 
1.________________ (PROG: CAMPO NUMERICO, 4 DIGITOS DESDE 1920 HASTA 2021) 
Q203. ¿Para realizar este trabajo, tiene usted algún tipo de contrato? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
Q204. ¿Para realizar este trabajo, usted recibe algún pago? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
II.2. Información de la organización
(ENC: LEA) Ahora, vamos a hablar sobre esta organización en la actualidad...
193 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q205. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q205) De las siguientes opciones, cuál describe de mejor manera la naturaleza, dedicación o tipo de (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE 
DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN) (RU):
1 Asociación de productores y/o comercializadores
2. Junta de Acción Comunal -JAC 
3. Asociación de JAC
4. Organización étnica (ej. consejos comunitarios de comunidades afrodescendientes, comunidades indígenas, etc.)
5. Veeduría ciudadana 
6. Organizaciones de población desplazada, población retornada o población vulnerable
7. Grupo voluntario de trabajo con la comunidad o de apoyo para población necesitada
8. Grupo de conservación del medio ambiente
9. Grupo deportivo y/o cultural
10. Grupo de LGBTI 
11. Grupo de mujeres
12. Grupos juveniles
13. Organizaciones educativas (asociación de padres de familia, grupos de estudiantes, etc.)
14. Junta de programación de emisoras comunitarias
15. Asociación de vigilancia y seguridad 
16. Movimiento político
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 194
17. Sindicato 
18. Grupos de comunicaciones
89. Otra ¿Cuál? 
(ENC: LEA) A partir de su conocimiento de esta organización responda las siguientes preguntas…
Q206. A partir de los registros, aproximadamente, en la actualidad cuántos miembros (PROG: PREGUNTAR POR CADA OPCION DE Q206) tiene esta organización: (ENC: 
SI EL ENCUESTADO RESPONDE NO SABE O NO RESPONDE, DILIGENCIE “999”) 
1. Totales 
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
999)
2. Activos 
___ (PROG: NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 999. EL 
NÚMERO DEBE SER 
IGUAL O MENOR A 1. 
TOTALES)
3. Inactivos
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, RANGO 
DE 0 A 999. EL 
NÚMERO DEBE SER 
IGUAL O MENOR A 1. 
TOTALES)
(PROG: EN Q206 LA SUMA DE LOS CODIGOS 2+3 DEBE SER IGUAL A 1. TOTALES. PERMITIR AVANCE SI SE MARCA 999 EN ALGUNA DE LAS OPCIONES)
Q207. Teniendo en cuenta que esta organización tiene (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q206.2) miembros activos aproximadamente, qué porcentaje son… (PROG: 
PREGUNTAR POR CADA OPCION DE Q207): 
1. Hombres ___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100)
2. Mujeres ___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100)
89. Otra identidad 
de género 
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100)
195 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(PROG: EN Q207 LA SUMA DE LOS CODIGOS 1+2+89 DEBE SER IGUAL A 100)
92. (ENC: NO LEA) No sabe
Q208. Teniendo en cuenta que esta organización tiene (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q206.2) miembros activos aproximadamente, qué porcentaje de estos se reconocen 
como (PROG: PREGUNTAR POR CADA OPCION DE Q208) 
1. Indígenas
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100) 
2. Negro (a)s, mulato 
(a)s (afrodescendiente), 
afrocolombianos
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100)
3. De 
otros 
grupos 
étnicos
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100)
4. Sin 
pertenencia a 
grupos étnicos
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 100)
(PROG: EN Q208 LA SUMA DE LOS CODIGOS 1+2+3+4 DEBE SER IGUAL A 100)
92. (ENC: NO LEA) No sabe
Q209. Aproximadamente, qué porcentaje de los miembros activos son… 
1. Jóvenes (entre 18 y 30 años) ___ (PROG: NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 100 Y 999)
II.3. Localización de la organización
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar sobre la localización geográfica de esta organización 
Q210. ¿En cuál municipio esta organización tiene mayor actividad económica o social?: (ENC: LEA)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 196
1. Departamento (RU) (PROG: TRAER DE DOCUMENTO LUGARES, LISTA DE DEPARTAMENTOS) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL DEPARTAMENTO 
QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
2. Municipio (RU) (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL DEPARTAMENTO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q210.1, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA 
DE MUNICIPIOS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE DEPARTAMENTO) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL MUNICIPIO QUE INDIQUE 
LA PERSONA)
Q211. Dentro del municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q210.2), ¿en qué zona se concentra la mayor actividad económica o social de esta organización? (ENC: LEA) 
(RU)
1. Cabecera municipal 2. Resto (zonas rurales-centros poblados y rural disperso) 
Q212. Esta organización tiene actividades en otros municipios (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Si 2. No
(PROG: SI RESPONDE EN Q212 COD 1 MUESTRE Q213, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q214)
Q213. Todos los municipios diferentes a (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q210.2) donde esta organización tiene actividad ¿pertenecen al departamento de (PROG: TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q210.1)?: (ENC: LEA) (RU) 
1. Si 2. No
II.4. Actividades de territorios de oportunidad en las que participa la organización
Q214. Usted sabe si esta organización ha participado en el programa Territorios de Oportunidad (ENC: LEA) (RU)
197 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q214 RESPONDE COD 2, PARA CADA ORGANIZACIÓN TRAER DE LLCC LAS SIGUIENTES VARIABLES Y MOSTRAR CON LA SIGUIENTE 
ESTRUCTURA)
ActivityName1 GeneralObjective1
ActivityName2 GeneralObjective2
ActivityName3 GeneralObjective3
(ENC: MUESTRE LA TABLET AL ENCUESTADO PARA QUE PUEDA LEER INFORMACIÓN. MENCIONE AL ENCUESTADO QUE ESTAS SON LAS ACTIVIDADES DE 
LA ORGANIZACIÓN APOYADAS POR TERRITORIOS DE OPORTUNIDAD UNA VEZ TERMINE DE LEER PIDA QUE DEVUELVA LA TABLET)
Q215. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q215) De las siguientes opciones, ¿cuál(es) describe(n) de mejor manera los componentes o áreas de las actividades de Territorios de 
Oportunidad en las que esta organización ha participado? (RM)
1. Fortalecimiento de 
las capacidades internas 
de la organización
2. Fortalecimiento 
de las actividades 
económicas
3. Gestión de infraestructura (por ejemplo, 
placa huella en vía, alcantarillas en vías 
provisión de energía, infraestructura 
educativa, de salud o para la producción, 
entre otras)
4. Participación y 
diálogo con otras 
organizaciones o 
entidades públicas y 
privadas 
5. Medios de comunicación, 
(por ejemplo, radio, 
televisión, prensa, redes 
sociales, entre otras).
93. NS/NR 
(PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
Q216.”. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, responda qué tan de acuerdo está con la siguiente afirmación. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo.
(ENC: LEA) (RU)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 198
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Las actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad responden a las 
necesidades de esta organización
1 2 3 4 5
Q217. ¿En cuál de las veredas del municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q210.2) donde esta organización ha trabajado con Territorios de Oportunidad se concentra la 
mayor actividad económica o social de esta organización? (ENC: ESPONTANEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER DEL DOCUMENTO LUGARES, LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDAN AL MUNICIPIO REPORTADO EN Q210.2)
89. Otra ¿Cuál? ___
998 No sabe
999 No responde
(PROG: SI EN Q217 RESPONDE COD 89 Ó 998, Ó 999, MUESTRE Q218 DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q219)
Q218. De las siguientes veredas del municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q210.2), en cuál considera usted que se concentra la mayor actividad económica y social de 
esta organización ENC: MUESTRE LA TABLET AL ENCUESTADO PARA QUE SELECCIONE LA RESPUESTA, UNA VEZ SELECCIONE LA RESPUESTA PIDA LA TABLET 
DE REGRESO) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER DEL DOCUMENTO LUGARES, LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDAN AL MUNICIPIO REPORTADO EN Q210.2) 
Q219. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, responda qué tan de acuerdo está con la siguiente afirmación 
(ENC: LEA) (RU)
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Las actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad en las que su organización 
participa responden a las necesidades de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA 
1 2 3 4 5
199 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q218) 
CAPÍTULO IV. CAPACIDADES DE LAS ORGANIZACIONES
IV.1. Gobernabilidad
ENC: LEA (PROG: SI Q215==1 MUESTRE: Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionadas 
con PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA EN Q215.1) Vamos a hablar sobre la estructura y conformación de esta organización …
Q401. ¿Esta organización cuenta con una junta directiva o administrativa, consejo directivo o directorio? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
Q402. ¿Esta organización cuenta con? (ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. Presidente 2. Vicepresidente 3. Secretario General 4. Tesorero 5. Contador/Revisor Fiscal 89. Otro. ¿Cuál? 
Q402.1 ¿Cuántos directivos tienen esta organización? (PROG: NUMERICO, RANGO DE 0 A 999. EL NÚMERO REGISTRADO DEBE SER IGUAL O MENOR AL 
REGISTRADO EN Q206.2)
Q403. Del total de los directivos, ¿cuántos de ellos son… (ENC: LEA) (RU)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 200
1. Hombres ___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 999)
2. Mujeres ___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 999)
89. Otra identidad 
de género 
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 
0 A 999)
PROG: AL MENOS UNA OPCION DE Q403 DEBE VENIR CON COD DIFERENTE DE 0 O 999. LA SUMA DE Q403.1, Q403.2 Y Q403.3 DEBE SER IGUAL A Q402.1
Q404. Cuántos de los actuales directivos de esta organización son (ENC: LEA OPCIONES Y ESCRIBA EL NUMERO CORRESPONDIENTE PARA CADA OPCION, SI, NO 
RESPONDE O NO SABE ESCRIBA 999)
1. Menores de 30 años ___ (PROG: NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 999)
2. Entre 30 años y 60 
años 
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, RANGO 
DE 0 A 999)
3. Mayores de 60 años
___ (PROG: 
NUMERICO, RANGO 
DE 0 A 999)
(PROG: AL MENOS UNA OPCION DE Q404 DEBE VENIR CON COD DIFERENTE DE 0 O 999. LA SUMA DE Q404.1, Q404.2 Y Q404.3 DEBE SER IGUAL A Q402.1)
Q405. ¿Cada cuánto se reúnen los directivos? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
1. Semanal
2. Mensual 
3. Trimestral (cada tres meses)
4. Semestral (cada seis meses)
5. Anual (cada año) 
201 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
6. Nunca 
(PROG: SI EN Q405 RESPONDIÓ COD DIFERENTE A 6 MUESTRE Q406, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q407)
Q406. Usualmente, ¿registran actas de dichas reuniones? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
Q407. Cuál es el PRINCIPAL medio de comunicación por el cual las decisiones tomadas por los directivos de la organización son socializadas con los asociados o miembros 
(ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Reuniones o asambleas 2. Boletines o folletos escritos 3. Redes sociales 4. Perifoneo 5. Voz a voz 6. No se socializan 89. Otro. Cuál. 
Q408. ¿Con qué frecuencia se realizan asambleas o reuniones generales con todos o la mayoría de los miembros de la organización? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU)
1. Semanal
2. Mensual 
3. Trimestral (cada tres meses) 
4. Semestral (cada seis meses) 
5. Anual (cada año) 
6. Nunca 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 202
(PROG: SI EN Q408 RESPONDIÓ COD DIFERENTE A 6, MUESTRE Q409, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q410)
Q409. Usualmente, ¿registran actas de dichas asambleas? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
Q410. Principalmente, ¿quién toma las decisiones sobre …. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
El presidente Junta Directiva Asamblea de asociados o miembros
1. Elección, nombramiento de directivos, administrativos y/o operativos? 1 2 3
2. Definición de procesos de contratación? 1 2 3
3. Definir temas prioritarios para la organización en la actualidad y en el largo plazo? 1 2 3
4. Manejo de los recursos financieros? 1 2 3
5. Resolver diferencias o conflictos entre asociados o miembros de la organización? 1 2 3
IV.2. Administrativas
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a hablar sobre las capacidades administrativas de esta organización …
Q411. ¿En qué año comenzó a funcionar la organización? ________ (PROG: NUMERICO, 4 DIGITOS ENTRE 1900 Y 2021 Y 999)
Q412. ¿Tiene certificado de Cámara de Comercio? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
203 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(PROG: SI EN Q412 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q413, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q414)
Q413. En qué año obtuvo el certificado de Cámara de Comercio: (PROG: NUMÉRICO 1920 A 2021. EL VALOR DEBE SER IGUAL O MAYOR AL DE Q411)
92. (ENC: NO LEA) No sabe
(PROG: SI EN Q412 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, PASE A Q416)
Q414. ¿La organización cuenta con personería jurídica? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q414 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q415, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q416)
Q415. Cuál es el año de legalización de la personería jurídica de la organización: (PROG: NUMÉRICO 1920 A 2021. EL VALOR DEBE SER IGUAL O MAYOR AL DE Q411)
92. (ENC: NO LEA) No sabe
Q416. Esta organización cuenta con documentación escrita de (PROG: FRASES DE Q416) (ENC: 
LEA) (RU)
Q417. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que fue actualizada esta 
documentación (PROG: FRASES DE Q416)? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) 
(RU)
FRASES Sí No NS/NR 
No aplica Hace menos 
de un año 
Entre 1 y 3 
años 
Más de tres 
años 
NS/NR
1. Procedimiento de adquisición de 
bienes y/o servicios
1. 2. 93. 94.
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q416.2)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q416.2)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q416.2)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q416.2)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 204
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q417.1)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q416.2)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q416.2)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q416.2)
2. Inventarios o sistemas de control 
de su patrimonio, bienes, activos o 
recursos fijos
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q417.2) 
2.
(PROG: 
Pase Q418)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase Q418)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase Q418)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q418)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q418)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q418)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q418)
IV.3. Recurso físico 
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a hablar brevemente sobre los principales recursos fijos de esta organización
Q418. Con qué tipo de infraestructura cuenta esta organización (ENC: LEA) (RM) 
1. Oficina administrativa 
2. Espacio para reuniones 
3. Infraestructura productiva (ej. Terreno productivo, centro de acopio, planta de procesamiento, almacén o sitio de ventas) 
90. Ninguna
89. Otro. Cuál
(PROG: PREGUNTAR Q419 PARA CADA RESPUESTA DE Q418)
Q419. Desde 2018, la (PROG: TRAER CADA RESPUESTA DE Q418) ha(n) sufrido algún cambio (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU): 
205 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. No hubo ningún cambio
2. Construyeron o instalaron nueva infraestructura
3. Ampliaron la infraestructura existente 
4. Rehabilitaron o mejoraron la infraestructura existente
5. Se le realizó mantenimiento básico a la infraestructura existente
IV.4. Planeación 
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a hablar sobre las capacidades de planeación de esta organización …
Q420. Esta organización ha definido y socializado entre todos sus miembros o asociados (PROG: FRASES DE 
Q420) (ENC: LEA) (RU) 
Q421. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que fue actualizado 
PROG: FRASES DE Q420) ? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) 
(RU):
FRASES
Sí No NS/NR 
No aplica Hace menos 
de un año 
Entre 1 y 3 
años
Más de 
tres años NS/NR
1. Principios de la organización: 
misión, visión y valores
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q421.1)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q420.2)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q420.2)
94.
(PROG: Pase Q420.2)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q420.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q420.2) 
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q420.2)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q420.2)
2. Plan de acción: metas, objetivos, 
actividades, riesgos, obstáculos y/o 
cronograma
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q421.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422)
94.
(PROG: Pase Q422)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q422)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 206
Q422. Esta organización ha realizado ejercicios de (PROG: FRASES DE Q422) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Q423. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que se realizó este 
tipo de ejercicio (PROG: FRASES DE Q422)? (ENC: 
ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
FRASES
Sí No NS/NR
No aplica Hace menos 
de un año
Entre 1 y 
3 años
Más de 
tres años NS/NR
2. Planeación de largo plazo
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q423.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422.3)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422.3)
94.
(PROG: Pase Q422.3)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q422.3)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422.3)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422.3)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q422.3)
3. Diseño e implementación de 
nuevas líneas de negocio o de 
servicio
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q423.3)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424)
94.
(PROG: Pase Q424)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424)
IV.5. Recursos Humanos
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a hablar sobre la gestión de recursos humanos dentro de esta organización …
Q424. Dentro de los estatutos o documentación escrita de esta organización, se cuenta 
con:(PROG: FRASES DE Q424) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Q425. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que fue actualizado esta documentación 
(PROG: FRASES DE Q424)? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
FRASES
Sí No NS/NR
Y. No 
aplica
Hace menos de 
un año
Entre 1 y 3 
años Más de tres años NS/NR
1. Funciones para el personal 
directivo, administrativo y/o 
operativo
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q425.1)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.2)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424.2)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424.2)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.2)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.2)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.2)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.2)
207 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
2. Funciones para los 
asociados de la organización 
que no tienen cargos 
directivos, administrativos u 
operativos
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q425.2)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.3)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424.3)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q424.3)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.3)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.3)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.3)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q424.3)
3. Política de elección y 
conservación de los directivos 
y asociados.
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q425.3)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426)
3.
(PROG: Pase Q426)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426)
IV.6. Gestión financiera
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a hablar sobre la gestión financiera de esta organización … 
Q426. Esta organización cuenta con (PROG: FRASES DE Q426) (ENC: LEA) (RU): Q427. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que fue actualizado esta documentación 
(PROG: FRASES DE Q426)? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
FRASES Sí No NS/NR No aplica
Hace menos de 
un año
Entre 1 y 3 
años
Más de tres años NS/NR
1. Informes regulares del 
balance financiero.
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q427.1)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.2)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.2)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.2)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.2)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.2)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.2)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.2)
2. Presupuesto 
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q427.2)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.3)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.3)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.3)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.3)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.3)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.3)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.3)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 208
3. Una estrategia o plan de 
recaudación de fondos
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q427.3)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.4)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.4)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.4)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.4)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.4)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.4)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.4)
4. Una cuenta bancaria
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q427.4)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.5)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.5)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.5)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.5)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.5)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.5)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.5)
5. Plan de negocio de la 
principal o mayoría de 
actividades económicas que 
desarrolla esta organización 
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q427.5)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.6)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.6)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q426.6)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.6)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.6)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.6)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q426.6)
6. Sistema de contabilidad
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q427.6)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q429)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q429)
94.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q429)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q428)
2.
(PROG: Pase 
Q428)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q428)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q428)
Q428. El sistema de contabilidad más usado por esta organización es (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Manual 2. Sistematizado 
Q429. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q429) Desde 2018, del total de recursos financieros o dinero que esta organización maneja, aproximadamente, diga qué porcentaje 
sobre el total proviene de las fuentes que aparecen en la tarjeta que le acabo de entregar (PROG: CAMPOS NUMERICOS ENTRE 0 Y 100, LA SUMA DE TODOS LOS 
CODIGOS DEBE SER IGUAL A 100)
209 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Contribución de los miembros o asociados 
2. Aportes de entidades públicas
3. Venta de productos o servicios 
4. Gestión de créditos
5. Aportes de Territorios de Oportunidad
6.Aportes de otros privados o entidades de cooperación 
89. Otras fuentes
Q430. Desde 2018, los recursos financieros han (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Aumentado 2. Disminuido 4. Sigue igual 93. NS/NR
IV.7. Transversales
(ENC: LEA) Teniendo en cuenta lo que me cuenta de las capacidades internas de esta organización relacionadas con la estructura directiva, la administración, la planeación, 
los recursos fijos, recursos humanos y la gestión financiera, desde el punto de vista de esta organización…
Q431. Desde 2018, de quién(es) ha recibido apoyo para fortalecer dichas capacidades (ENC: LEA) (RM):
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional 
2. 
Gobierno 
local 
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias 
4. Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad 
6. Cooperación 
internacional
7. (PROG: SI EN Q205 
MARCÓ 2, MOSTRAR 
“Otra Junta de Acción 
Comunal; SI NO MARCÓ 
89. Otro 
¿Cuál? 90. Ninguno 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 210
CÓD 2 EN Q205 “Junta 
de Acción Comunal”)
(PROG: SI EN Q431 RESPONDIÓ COD 5, MUESTRE Q432, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q435)
Q432. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q432) Utilizando esta tarjeta, por favor dígame, ¿En qué tipo de capacidades ha recibido apoyo desde Territorios de Oportunidad? (RM): 
1. Capacidades de gobernabilidad: estructura organizativa, relación entre directivos y asociados, o toma de decisiones -
2. Capacidades administrativas: personería jurídica, procedimientos de adquisición e inventario de bienes y/o servicios
3. Recursos fijos: Oficina, centro de reuniones, infraestructura productiva
4. Capacidades de planeación: principios de la organización, plan de acción, planes de largo plazo o estratégicos, líneas de negocio o servicio
5. Recursos Humanos: Definición de funciones, selección y conservación de directivos y asociados, 
6. Gestión Financiera: Sistema de contabilidad, balances, auditorias, recaudación de fondos, plan de negocio y fuente de ingresos. 
89. Otro. ¿Cuál?
Q433. Durante su participación en Territorios de Oportunidad, esta organización ha hecho cambios importantes en (ENC: LEA) (RM):
1. Los estatutos, naturaleza jurídica o en el objeto social 
2. Los productos o servicios ofrecidos
3. Las fuentes de recursos 
4. Organización o creación de comités de trabajo
211 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
89. Otro. ¿Cuál?
(PROG: PREGUNTAR Q434 PARA CADA RESPUESTA DE Q432)
Q434. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. Responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones relacionadas el apoyo le ha brindado 
Territorios de Oportunidad a esta organización en fortalecimiento de capacidades internas (ENC: LEA) (RU):
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. RESPONDE TOTALMENTE a las principales necesidades de 
fortalecimiento interno de esta organización
1 2 3 4 5
2. Es SUFICIENTE para satisfacer las PRINCIPALES necesidades de 
fortalecimiento interno de esta organización 
1 2 3 4 5
Q435. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q435). Utilizando esta tarjeta, por favor dígame, actualmente, ¿qué tipo de capacidades son prioritarias para ser fortalecidas dentro de 
esta organización? (ENC: LEA-Tarjeta) (RM):
1. Capacidades de gobernabilidad: estructura organizativa, relación entre directivos y asociados, o toma de decisiones 
2. Capacidades administrativas: personería jurídica, procedimientos de adquisición e inventario de bienes y/o servicios
3. Recursos fijos: Oficina, centro de reuniones, infraestructura productiva
4. Capacidades de planeación: principios de la organización, plan de acción, planes de largo plazo o estratégicos, líneas de negocio o servicio
5. Recursos Humanos: Manuales de funciones, selección y conservación de personas y asociados, 
6. Gestión Financiera: Sistema de contabilidad, balances, auditorias, recaudación de fondos, plan de negocio y fuente de ingresos.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 212
89. Otro. ¿Cuál?
CAPÍTULO V. DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO
V. 1. Identificación de actividad e ingresos
PROG: SI Q215==2 O Q215==5 MUESTRE: Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad 
relacionadas con PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA EN Q215.2 SI Q215==2 Y RESPUESTA EN Q215.5 SI Q215==5
Q502. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q502) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame ¿cuáles son las TRES principales actividades que realiza esta organización, indíquelas por 
orden de importancia (Siendo 1 la más importante), ESCRIBA EL ORDEN DE IMPORTANCIA 1,2,3, RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 PRINCIPALES) (RM): (PROG: 
CAMPOS NÚMERICOS 1 A 3. SI SOLO MARCA 1 OPCION, PERMITIR PASAR ESCRIBIENDO 1, SI SOLO MARCA 2 OPCIONES, PERMITIR PASAR ESCRIBIENDO 1 Y 
2)
1. Agropecuaria (producción agrícola- ej. café, cacao, coco, frutas, etc.- producción pecuaria, -ej. Ganadería, piscicultura, etc.-) 
2. Artesanías
3. Servicios de turismo (alojamiento, servicio de guía, agencias de viaje, recreacionistas, etc.)
4. Actividades musicales y otras expresiones artísticas o culturales
5. Actividades deportiva o de recreación
213 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
6. Actividades de servicios de alimentos y restaurantes (cocineros, meseros, panaderos, etc.) 
7. Industria manufacturera 
8. Comercio de productos al por menor o al por mayor
9. Servicios informáticos y de telecomunicaciones, producción de contenidos comunicacionales y/o publicitarios.
10. Administración u operación de proyectos sobre infraestructura productiva 
11. Administración u operación de proyectos sobre infraestructura para la movilidad 
89. Otro ¿Cuál? 
Q508. Desde 2018, para el desarrollo de la actividad principal 
de esta organización (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE 
Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1), han recibido apoyo con 
(PROG: FRASES DE Q508) (ENC: LEA) (RU):
Q509.De quiénes han recibido recursos (en dinero o trabajo) para (PROG: FRASES DE Q508) (ENC: 
LEA) (RM):
FRASES
Sí No NS/NR
No 
aplica
Gobiern
o 
Nacional
Gobiern
o local
Otras 
organizacione
s 
comunitarias
Sector 
privado
Programa 
Territorios 
de 
Oportunida
d
Cooperació
n 
internacion
al
(PROG: SI 
EN 205 
RESPONDIO 
2, MOSTRAR 
“Otra Junta 
de Acción 
Comunal; DE 
LO 
CONTRARI
O, 
MOSTRAR 
“Junta de 
Otro 
¿Cuál?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 214
Acción 
Comunal”)
1. Asistencia 
técnica o 
capacitaciones
1.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q509.1
)
2.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.2
)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.2)
94.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.2
)
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.2)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.2)
4.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.2
)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.2)
6.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.2)
7.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.2)
89.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.2
)
2. Financiamiento 
directo
1.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q509.2
)
2.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.3
)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.3)
94.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.3
)
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.3)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.3)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.3)
4.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.3
)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.3)
6.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.3)
7.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.3)
89.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.3
)
3. Crédito
1.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q509.3
)
2.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.4
)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.4)
94.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.4
)
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.4)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.4)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.4)
4.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.4
)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.4)
6.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.4)
7.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.4)
89.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.4
)
4. 
Equipos/maquinar
ia o insumos/ 
materias primas 
para la 
producción de su 
producto o 
servicio
1.
(PROG
: Pase 
509.4)
2.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.5
)
93.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.5)
)
94.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.5
)
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.5)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.5)
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.5)
4.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.5
)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.5)
6.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q508.5)
7.
(PROG: Pase 
Q508.5)
89.
(PROG
: Pase 
Q508.5
)
5. 
Comercialización 
o divulgación del 
producto o 
1. 2. 93. 94. 1. 2.
3.
(PROG: Pase 
Q501)
4.
5.
(PROG: 
Pase Q501)
6.
(PROG: 
Pase Q501)
7.
(PROG: Pase 
Q501)
89.
215 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
servicio de esta 
organización
(PROG
: Pase 
509.5)
(PROG
: Pase 
Q501)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q501)
(PROG
: Pase 
Q501)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q501)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q501)
(PROG
: Pase 
Q501)
(PROG
: Pase 
Q501)
Q501. ¿Esta organización tiene o realiza alguna actividad por la que ha recibido o genera ingresos o recursos económicos? (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q501 RESPONDIÓ COD 1 MUESTRE Q503. DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q522)
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a hablar acerca de la principal actividad de esta organización: (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1) 
Q503 Por el desarrollo de (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1), ¿desde qué año recibe o genera ingresos esta organización? 
1.Año (PROG: NUMERICO, 4 DIGITOS NO SUPERIOR A 2021. EL VALOR DEBE SER IGUAL O MAYOR AL REGISTRADO EN Q411)
Q504. Al final de cada año, esta organización calcula las ganancias, utilidades o excedentes producto de (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 
1) (ENC: LEA) (RU): 
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q504 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q505, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q510) 
Q505. Durante el último año, (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1) le dejó ganancias, utilidades o excedentes a esta organización (ENC: 
LEA) (RU):
1. Sí 2. No
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 216
(PROG: SI EN Q505 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q506, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q510)
Q506. Cuál fue el porcentaje de esta ganancia, utilidad o excedente (ingresos menos gastos) sobre el ingreso total de (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE 
ENUMERÓ COMO 1): 
1. ___ (PROG: NUMERICO, RANGO DE 0 A 100 Y 999)
(PROG: SI EN Q506 RESPONDIO NUMERO ENTRE 0 Y 100 MUESTRE Q507, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q510)
Q507. Desde 2018, esta ganancia, utilidad o excedente de (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1) ha (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Aumentado 2. Disminuido 3. Sigue igual 93. NS/NR
V.2. Dinamización de la economía social y aprovechamiento de oportunidades
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a continuar conversando de la principal actividad económica (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1).
Q510 Actualmente, esta organización tiene acuerdos 
económicos o negocios (de carácter productivo, 
comerciales, etc.) con (PROG: FRASES DE Q510) 
(ENC: LEA) (RU): 
Q511. Cuántos acuerdos 
económicos o negocios tiene 
con (PROG: FRASES DE 
Q510)
Q512. Cuál es el nombre de 
su principal aliado de (PROG: 
FRASES DE Q510)
Q513. Para la realización de dicho acuerdo 
o alianza con (PROG: FRASES DE Q510), 
¿la organización fue apoyada por el 
programa Territorios de Oportunidad? 
(ENC: LEA) (RU):
FRASES
Sí No
_______(PROG: 
NUMERICO RANGO DE 1 
A 100) _______(PROG: ABIERTA) Sí No
1. Organización(es) o 
empresa(s) privada(s)
1. 2. (Pase Q512.1) (PROG: Pase Q513.1)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q510.2)
2.
(PROG: Pase Q510.2)
217 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q511.1)
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q510.2)
2. Entidad(es) pública(s)
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q511.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q510.3)X
(Pase Q512.2) (PROG: Pase Q513.2)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q510.3)
2.
(PROG: Pase Q510.3)
3. Otras organizaciones de 
base comunitaria
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q511.3)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q514)X
(Pase Q512.3) (PROG: Pase Q513.3)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q514)
2.
(PROG: Pase Q514)
Q514. De las alianzas que indicó tener, cuál considera que le genera más beneficios a esta organización (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER OPCIONES DE Q510.1, Q510.2, Q510.3 EN LAS QUE RESPONDIÓ COD 1 “SÍ” . NO MOSTRAR PREGUNTA SI CÓD 2 EN TODAS LAS OPCIONES 
DE Q510 O SI SOLO MARCÓ UNA OPCIÓN EN Q510 )
1. Organización(es) o empresa(s) privada(s)
2. Entidad(es) pública(s)
3. Organización (es) de base comunitaria
(PROG: PREGUNTAR Q515 PARA CADA RESPUESTA DE Q513 MARCADA CON COD 1)
Q515. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q515) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame, ¿cuáles son los TRES mayores beneficios que trajo la alianza con (PROG: TRAER 
TEXTO DE Q512) a la principal actividad económica de esta organización? (ENC: RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 MAYORES) (RM). (PROG: ACEPTAR HASTA 3 
RESPUESTAS)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 218
1. Menos costos de producción
2. Más productividad (con los mismos insumos, hubo un aumento en la producción)
3. Mejor calidad de los productos y servicios.
4. Mejor calidad de los procesos de producción
5. Mejor calidad de los procesos de comercialización
6. Más ventas 
7. Más ingresos 
8. Más volúmenes vendidos o comercializados
9. Más confianza entre sus asociados 
10. Se generaron nuevas líneas de producción
11. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso de comercialización 
12. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso producción de las líneas de producción existentes
13. Garantizaron o aseguraron anticipadamente ventas
14. Aumentó el precio del bien o servicio
15. Se transformó la materia prima o producto fresco producido en un producto procesado 
16. Reducción de tiempos de transporte
17. Reducción de costos de transporte
219 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
90. Ninguno (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
89. Otro ¿cuál? 
(PROG: SI EN Q509 RESPONDIO COD 5 EN ALGUNA OPCION Ó EN Q513 RESPONDIO COD 1 EN ALGUNA OPCION MUESTRE Q516, DE LO CONTRARIO 
PASE A Q517)
Q516. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q515) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame, ¿Cuáles son los TRES mayores beneficios que el apoyo de Territorios de Oportunidad le 
trajo a la principal actividad económica (PROG: TRAER LA RESPUESTA DE Q502 QUE ENUMERÓ COMO 1) de esta organización? (ENC: RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 
MAYORES) (RM): (PROG: ACEPTAR HASTA 3 RESPUESTAS)
1. Menos costos de producción
2. Más productividad (con los mismos insumos, hubo un aumento en la producción)
3. Mejor calidad de los productos y servicios.
4. Mejor calidad de los procesos de producción
5. Mejor calidad de los procesos de comercialización
6. Más ventas
7. Más ingresos 
8. Más volúmenes vendidos o comercializados
9. Más confianza entre sus asociados 
10. Se generaron nuevas líneas de producción
11. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso de comercialización 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 220
12. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso producción de las líneas de producción existentes
13. Garantizaron o aseguraron anticipadamente ventas
14. Aumentó el precio del bien o servicio
15. Se transformó la materia prima o producto fresco producido en un producto procesado 
16. Reducción de tiempos de transporte
17. Reducción de costos de transporte
90. Ninguno (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
89. Otro ¿cuál? 
V.3. Oportunidades de mejora 
Q517. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, qué tipo de apoyo es prioritario actualmente para aumentar las ganancias de la(s) actividad(es) económica(s) que 
desarrolla esta organización (ENC: LEA ) (RU):
1. Asistencia 
técnica o 
capacitaciones 
2. Recursos 
financieros 
3 Equipos/maquinaria o insumos/ 
materias primas para la producción de 
su producto o servicio
4. 
Generación 
de alianzas
89. 
Otro 
¿Cuál? 
90. Ninguno 
V.4. Sostenibilidad de la intervención
(ENC: LEA) Ahora, desde el punto de vista de esta organización, conversemos sobre la sostenibilidad de las actividades económicas que desarrolla esta organización… 
Sostenibilidad entendida como la capacidad de continuar operando en el mediano y largo plazo 
Q518. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q518) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame, ¿Cuál(es) considera que serían la(s) circunstancia(s) más relevantes que podrían afectar 
negativamente la(s) actividad(es) económica(s) de esta organización durante el presente año? Elija máximo las principales 3 y enumere de 1 a 3 según su nivel de importancia 
221 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(RM) (PROG: CAMPOS NÚMERICOS, ACEPTAR HASTA 3 RESPUESTAS. SI SOLO MARCA 1 OPCION, PERMITIR PASAR ESCRIBIENDO 1, SI SOLO MARCA 2 
OPCIONES, PERMITIR PASAR ESCRIBIENDO 1 Y 2)
1. Pérdida de sus principales compradores o beneficiarios de sus productos o servicios 
2. Se mantienen los cierres o restricciones a las actividades económicas a causa del COVID-19 
3. Empeoren las consecuencias del cambio climático (por ejemplo, cambios rápidos de clima, temperatura extremos, etc.)
4. Empeore la situación de seguridad 
Q519. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q519) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame, ¿Cuáles son los TRES principales factores que determinan la sostenibilidad en el tiempo 
de la(s) actividad(es) económica(s) de esta organización? (ENC: RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 PRINCIPALES) (RM) (PROG: ACEPTAR HASTA TRES RESPUESTAS)
1.Capacidad de ahorro 
2. Acceso a crédito
3. Capital de trabajo (ingresos que se guardan para garantizar el funcionamiento continuo del negocio)
4. Participación activa de los miembros
5. Acuerdos comerciales con aliados 
6. Acceso a bienes y servicios o infraestructura pública
7. Acceso a insumos que se producen fuera de la vereda de operación de la organización
8. Condiciones de seguridad local 
9. La calidad de los productos y/o servicios ofrecidos
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 222
10. Entendimiento de las características del mercado 
11. Diferenciación del producto 
12. La rentabilidad del producto
89. Otra ¿Cuál? 
V.5. Sostenibilidad ambiental interna
Q520. Desde 2018, en el marco del desarrollo de las actividades económicas de esta organización, ¿cuál ha sido la principal actividad relacionada con sostenibilidad 
ambiental? (ENC: LEA) (RM) 
1. Se implementó un plan de manejo ambiental
2. El producto o servicio que ofrece cuenta con un sello ambiental
3. Los insumos provienen de fuentes amigables con el ambiente 
4. Promueve actividades entre los miembros de cuidado ambiental 
5. Se mejoraron las prácticas en la producción de bienes o servicios o en la ejecución de proyectos (incluye manejo de desechos)
89. Otra. Cuál
90. (PROG: EXCLUYENTE. ENC: NO LEER) Ninguna
(PROG: SI EN Q520 RESPONDIO COD DIFERENTE A 90 MUESTRE Q521)
223 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q521. Desde 2018, de quién(es) ha recibido apoyo para mejorar sostenibilidad económica, social y ambiental de la(s) actividad(es) económica(s) que realiza esta organización 
(ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional 
2. 
Gobierno 
local
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias 
4. 
Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios 
de 
Oportunidad 
6. 
Cooperación 
internacional 
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
8. (PROG: SI EN Q205 
RESPONDIO 2, 
MOSTRAR “Otra Junta 
de Acción Comunal; 
DE LO CONTRARIO, 
MOSTRAR “Junta de 
Acción Comunal”)
89. 
Otro 
¿Cuál? 
90. Ninguno 
(PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
(PROG: MOSTRAR Q522 SI Q501 es COD 2)
Q522. Cuál es la principal razón por la cual esta organización no tiene una actividad que le genere ingresos (ENC: ESPONTANEA) (RU)
1. No es una prioridad 
2. No se ha logrado un acuerdo entre los asociados 
3. No hay recursos financieros para emprender 
4. No cuentan con las capacidades internas necesarias (ejem. personería jurídica, sistema de contabilidad, estatutos, etc.) 
6. Los costos para iniciar producción son demasiado altos
89. Otra. Cuál
(ENC: LEA) Finalmente, en términos generales desde la experiencia de esta organización 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 224
Q523. Desde 2018 ¿la situación económica de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q218)? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Ha mejorado 2. Se mantiene igual de bien 3. Se mantiene igual de mal 4. Ha empeorado
VI. 1. INVOLUCRAMIENTO DE LAS COMUNIDADES EN LA PROVISIÓN DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS
PROG: SI Q215==3 MUESTRE: Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionadas con PROG: 
INSERTE RESPUESTA EN Q215.3
Q601. Desde 2018, ¿esta organización ha participado en proyectos de construcción y/o mantenimiento de bienes y servicios públicos o infraestructura, por ejemplo, 
mejoramiento de vías, provisión de energía, infraestructura educativa, de salud o para la producción, entre otras? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q601 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q602, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q608)
Q602. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q602) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame, ¿En qué tipo de tarea(s) ha participado? (RM)
1. Diseño o planeación (planificación de la obra)
2. Implementación o ejecución (jornalear o aportar mano de obra)
3. Supervisión o interventoría (hacer veeduría o vigilancia del desarrollo de la obra)
225 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. Operación (participar en el funcionamiento de la obra)
(PROG: SI EN Q602 RESPONDIO COD 2 MUESTRE Q603, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q604)
Q603. Específicamente en el marco de la implementación o ejecución de proyectos de construcción y/o mantenimiento de bienes y servicios públicos, ¿quién toma la mayoría 
de las veces las decisiones relacionadas con: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
El presidente Junta Directiva Asamblea de asociados o miembros
1. Ejecución de recursos? 1 2 3
2. Desarrollo del soporte documental? 1 2 3
Q604. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q604) De los proyectos en los que ha participado, ¿en qué área se han desarrollado los principales proyectos? (ENC: REGISTRE 
MÁXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) (PROG: SE ACEPTAN MINIMO 1 RESPUESTA, MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) (RM)
1. Placa huella en vías
2. Centros educativos
3. Centro de salud
4. Sistema de alcantarillado
5. Provisión de internet
6. Provisión de energía eléctrica
7. Provisión de sistemas de riego/drenaje
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 226
8. Escenarios deportivos
9. Centros de acopio
10. Planta de procesamiento
11. Alcantarillas en vías
12. Puentes
89. Otro. ¿cuál?
(PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIÓ MAS DE UNA OPCIÓN, MUESTRE Q605, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q606)
Q605. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q604) De los proyectos que ha participado, cuál considera usted que ha sido el tipo de infraestructura que más beneficio le ha traído a 
la población de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTAS DADAS EN Q604)
1. Placa huella en vías
2. Centros educativos
3. Centro de salud
4. Sistema de alcantarillado
5. Provisión de internet
6. Provisión de energía eléctrica
7. Provisión de sistemas de riego/drenaje
227 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
8. Escenarios deportivos
9. Centros de acopio
10. Planta de procesamiento
11. Alcantarillas en vías
12. Puentes
89. Otro. ¿cuál?
Q606. Quién(es) han brindado recursos o trabajo al proyecto de (PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIO SOLO UNA OPCION TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q604, DE LO 
CONTRARIO TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q605): (ENC: LEA) (RM):
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional
2. 
Gobierno 
local
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias
4. 
Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad
6. 
Cooperación 
internacional
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
8. (PROG: SI EN 205 
RESPONDIO 2, 
MOSTRAR “Otra Junta 
de Acción Comunal; 
DE LO CONTRARIO, 
MOSTRAR “Junta de 
Acción Comunal”)
89. 
Otro 
¿Cuál?
Q607. Sobre el tipo de obra (PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIO SOLO UNA OPCION TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q604, DE LO CONTRARIO TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q605), responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
FRASES Muy en 
desacuerdo
2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 228
1. La obra respondió a las necesidades MÁS IMPORTANTES de esta 
organización
1 2 3 4 5
2. La obra respondió a las necesidades MÁS IMPORTANTES de la población de 
la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN 
Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218)?
1 2 3 4 5
3. La población de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI 
RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218)? 
participó en el diseño y ejecución de la obra
1 2 3 4 5
4. La obra se ejecutó dentro de los tiempos planeados y con los recursos 
asignados inicialmente
1 2 3 4 5
Q607.1. Sobre el tipo de obra (PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIO SOLO UNA OPCION TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q604, DE LO CONTRARIO TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q605), responda (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Sí No NS/NR No aplica
1. La organización aportó recursos financieros, dinero o capital físico para el 
desarrollo de esta obra
1 2 93 94
2. (PROG: MOSTRAR SOLO SI EN Q602 RESPONDIÓ COD 2) se generaron 
excedentes o sobro dinero, lo que permitió hacer otras obras
1 2 93 94
3. (PROG: MOSTRAR SOLO SI EN Q602 RESPONDIÓ COD 2) Esta 
organización está en capacidad de ejecutar otras obras de infraestructura
1 2 93 94
4. (PROG: MOSTRAR SOLO SI EN Q602 RESPONDIÓ COD 2) Esta 
organización ha ejecutado otras obras de infraestructura posterior a esta
1 2 93 94
229 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5. (PROG: MOSTRAR SOLO SI EN Q602 RESPONDIÓ COD 2) Esta 
organización había ejecutado previamente obras de infraestructura
1 2 93 94
VI.2. Aprovechamiento de la infraestructura
Q608. Desde 2018, ¿la vía terciaria más importante para la operación de esta organización fue mantenida, rehabilitada o mejorada? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No 93. NS/NR
(PROG: SI EN Q608 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q609, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q611)
Q609. Quién(es) han brindado aportes en recursos (en dinero o trabajo) para este mejoramiento (ENC: LEA) (RM):
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional 
2. 
Gobierno 
local
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias 
4. 
Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios 
de 
Oportunidad 
6. 
Cooperación 
internacional 
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
8. (PROG: SI 
EN Q205 
RESPONDIO 
2, MOSTRAR 
“Otra Junta de 
Acción 
Comunal; DE 
LO 
CONTRARIO, 
MOSTRAR 
“Junta de 
Acción 
Comunal”) 
89. 
Otro 
¿Cuál? 
90. Ninguno 
(PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
(PROG: SI EN Q608 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q610. DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q611)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 230
Q610. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q515) Cuáles son los TRES principales beneficios que este mantenimiento, rehabilitación o mejoramiento le trajo a la actividad 
económica y social de esta organización (RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 PRINCIPALES) (RM) (PROG: ACEPTAR HASTA TRES RESPUESTAS)
1. Menos costos de producción
2. Más productividad (con los mismos insumos, hubo un aumento en la producción)
3. Mejor calidad de los productos y servicios.
4. Mejor calidad de los procesos de producción
5. Mejor calidad de los procesos de comercialización
6. Más ventas
7. Más ingresos
8. Más volúmenes vendidos o comercializados
9. Más confianza entre sus asociados
10. Se generaron nuevas líneas de producción
11. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso de comercialización
12. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso producción de las líneas de producción existentes
13. Garantizaron o aseguraron anticipadamente ventas
14. Aumentó el precio del bien o servicio
15. Se transformó la materia prima o producto fresco producido en un producto procesado
16. Reducción de tiempos de transporte
231 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
17. Reducción de costos de transporte
90. Ninguno (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
89. Otro ¿cuál?
VI.3. Dotación de servicios públicos
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar sobre el acceso a servicios públicos
Q611. En la actualidad, ¿en la 
vereda (PROG: TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI 
RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 
Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA 
DE Q218) tienen acceso a (PROG: 
FRASES DE Q611)? (ENC: LEER) 
(RU)
Q612. 
En 
promedi
o, 
cuántas 
horas al 
día 
funciona 
(PROG: 
FRASES 
DE 
Q611)?
(ENC: 
LEER) 
(RU)
Q613. Desde 2018, ¿cuál fue el principal 
cambio que sufrió el servicio de (PROG: 
FRASES DE Q611) en esta vereda? 
(ENC: Tarjeta Q613) (RU)
1. No hubo ningún cambio.
2. Construyeron o instalaron el servicio 
por primera vez
3. Ampliaron el servicio existente
4. Rehabilitaron o mejoraron el servicio 
existente 
5. Se le realizó mantenimiento básico al 
servicio existente
Q614. De quiénes han recibido recursos (en dinero o trabajo) para (PROG: 
FRASES DE Q611) (ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. Gobierno Nacional
2. Gobierno local
3. Otras organizaciones comunitarias
4. Sector privado
5. Programa Territorios de Oportunidad
6. Cooperación Internacional
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
8. (PROG: SI EN Q205 RESPONDIO 2, MOSTRAR “Otra Junta de Acción 
Comunal; DE LO CONTRARIO, MOSTRAR “Junta de Acción Comunal”)
89. Otro ¿Cuál?___
FRASES Sí No
NS/N
R 
a. Horas 
__ 
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 232
(PROG: 
NUMERI
CO, 
RANGO 
DE 0 A 
24)
1. 
Energía 
eléctrica
1 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q612
.1)
2 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
93
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
a. Horas 
__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERI
CO, 
RANGO 
DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase 
Q613.1)
1 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
2 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q614
.1)
3 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q614
.1)
4 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q614
.1)
5 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q614
.1)
1 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
2 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
3 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
4 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
5 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
6 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
7 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
8 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
89
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
2. 
Acueduct
o 
1 
(Pase 
Q612
.2)
2 
(Pase 
Q611
.3)
93
(Pase 
Q611
.3)
a. Horas 
__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERI
CO, 
RANGO 
DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase 
Q613.2)
1 
(Pase 
Q611
.3)
2 
(Pase 
Q614
.2)
3 
(Pase 
Q614
.2)
4 
(Pase 
Q614
.2)
5 
(Pase 
Q614
.2)
1 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
2 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
3 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
4 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
5 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
6 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
7 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
8 
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
89
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
3. 
Internet
1 2 93
a. Horas 
__ 
(PROG: 
1 2 3 4 5 
1 
(PRO
G: 
2 
(PRO
G: 
3 
(PRO
G: 
4 
(PRO
G: 
5 
(PRO
G: 
6 
(PRO
G: 
7 
(PRO
G: 
8 
(PRO
G: 
89
(PRO
G: 
233 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(Pase 
Q612
.3)
(Pase 
Q611
.4)
(Pase 
Q611
.4)
NUMERI
CO, 
RANGO 
DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase 
Q613.3)
(Pase 
Q611
.4)
(Pase 
Q614
.3)
(Pase 
Q614
.3)
(Pase 
Q614
.3)
(Pase 
Q614
.3)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
Pase 
Q611
.4)
4. 
Alcantaril
lado
1.
(Pase 
Q612
.4)
2 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
93.
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
a. Horas 
__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERI
CO, 
RANGO 
DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase 
Q613.4)
1 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
2 
(Pase 
Q614
.4)
3 
(Pase 
Q614
.4)
4 
(Pase 
Q614
.4)
5 
(Pase 
Q614
.4)
1 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
2 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
3 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
4 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
5 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
6 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
7 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
8 
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
89
(Pase 
Q615
.1)
PROG: SI EN ALGUNA DE LAS PREGUNTAS Q613.1, Q613.2 Q613.3 O Q613.4 RESPONDIÓ UNA OPCIÓN DIFERENTE A COD 1 PASE A Q615.1. DE LO 
CONTRARIO PASE A Q616
Q615.1 De las obras realizadas en los servicios públicos, cuál considera usted que ha sido la que más beneficio le ha traído a esta organización (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER LAS FRASES DE Q611 EM LAS QUE SE HAYA MARCADO CÓD DIFERENTE A 1 EN Q613)
1. Energía eléctrica
2. Acueducto
3. Internet
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 234
4. Alcantarillado
Q615. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q515) Utilizando esta tarjeta por favor dígame, ¿cuáles son los TRES principales beneficios que este mantenimiento, rehabilitación o 
mejoramiento le trajo a la actividad económica y social de esta organización (ENC: RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 PRINCIPALES) (RM) (PROG: ACEPTAR HASTA TRES 
RESPUESTAS)
1. Menos costos de producción 
2. Más productividad (con los mismos insumos, hubo un aumento en la producción)
3. Mejor calidad de los productos y servicios.
4. Mejor calidad de los procesos de producción
5. Mejor calidad de los procesos de comercialización
6. Más ventas
7. Más ingresos
8. Más volúmenes vendidos o comercializados
9. Más confianza entre sus asociados
10. Se generaron nuevas líneas de producción
11. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso de comercialización
12. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso producción de las líneas de producción existentes
13. Garantizaron o aseguraron anticipadamente ventas
235 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
14. Aumentó el precio del bien o servicio
15. Se transformó la materia prima o producto fresco producido en un producto procesado
16. Reducción de tiempos de transporte
17. Reducción de costos de transporte
90. Ninguno (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
89. Otro ¿cuál?
VI.4. Dotación de infraestructura pública
Q616. En la actualidad, 
¿en el municipio (PROG: 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q210.2 ) tienen acceso 
a…(PROG: OPCIONES 
DE Q616)? (ENC: LEA) 
(RU)
1. Si
2. No
93. NS/NR
Q616.1. En qué 
vereda se 
encuentra el 
PROG: 
OPCIONES DE 
Q616) al que 
usted accede 
usualmente 
(ENC: 
ESPONTÁNEA
) (RU)
Q617. Cómo califica este 
servicio de …(PROG: 
OPCIONES DE Q616)?] 
(ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Muy bueno
2. Bueno
3. Regular (ni bueno ni malo)
4. Malo
5. Muy malo
Q618. (ENC: ENTRGUE TARJETA 
Q613) Desde 2018, ¿cuál fue el 
principal cambio que sufrió el acceso a 
…(PROG: OPCIONES DE Q616)? 
(ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. No hubo ningún cambio
2. Construyeron o instalaron el 
servicio por primera vez
3. Ampliaron el servicio existente
4. Rehabilitaron o mejoraron el 
servicio existente
Q619. De quiénes han recibido 
recursos (en $ o trabajo) para 
…(PROG: OPCIONES DE 
Q616) (RM)
1. Gobierno Nacional
2. Gobierno local
3. Otras organizaciones 
comunitarias
4. Sector privado
5. Programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad
6. Cooperación internacional
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 236
5. Se le realizó mantenimiento básico 
al servicio existente
8. (PROG: SI EN Q205 
RESPONDIO 2, MOSTRAR 
“Otra Junta de Acción Comunal; 
DE LO CONTRARIO, 
MOSTRAR “Junta de Acción 
Comunal”)
89. Otro ¿Cuál?
OPCIONES 1 2 93 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
8
9
1. Canchas o 
espacios 
deportivos
1. 
(Pase 
616.1.
1)
2. 
(Pase 
616.2)
93. 
(Pase 
616.2)
(PROG: TRAER 
DEL 
DOCUMENT
O LUGARES, 
LISTA DE 
VEREDAS QUE 
CORRESPON
DAN AL 
MUNICIPIO 
REPORTADO 
EN Q210.2)
1. 
(Pas
e 
618.
1)
2. 
(Pas
e 
618.
1)
3. 
(Pas
e 
618.
1)
4. 
(Pas
e 
618.
1)
1.
(Pase 
616.2)
2.
(Pas
e 
619.
1)
3.
(Pas
e 
619.
1)
4. 
(Pas
e 
619.
1)
5.
(Pas
e 
619.
1)
(Pase 616.2)
2. Centros 
comunitarios
, auditorio o 
salón 
comunal
1. 
(Pase 
616.1.
2)
2. 
(Pase 
616.3)
93. 
(Pase 
616.3)
(PROG: TRAER 
DEL 
DOCUMENT
O LUGARES, 
LISTA DE 
VEREDAS QUE 
CORRESPON
DAN AL 
MUNICIPIO 
1. 
(Pas
e 
618.
2)
2. 
(Pas
e 
618.
2)
3. 
(Pas
e 
618.
2)
4. 
(Pas
e 
618.
2)
1. 
(Pase 
616.3)
2.
(Pas
e 
619.
2)
3.
(Pas
e 
619.
2)
4. 
(Pas
e 
619.
2)
5.
(Pas
e 
619.
2)
(Pase 616.3)
237 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
REPORTADO 
EN Q210.2)
3. Plantas de 
procesamien
to
1. 
(Pase 
616.1.
3)
2. 
(Pase 
616.4)
93. 
(Pase 
616.4)
(PROG: TRAER 
DEL 
DOCUMENT
O LUGARES, 
LISTA DE 
VEREDAS QUE 
CORRESPON
DAN AL 
MUNICIPIO 
REPORTADO 
EN Q210.2)
1. 
(Pas
e 
618.
3)
2. 
(Pas
e 
618.
3)
3. 
(Pas
e 
618.
3)
4. 
(Pas
e 
618.
3)
1. 
(Pase 
616.4)
2.
(Pas
e 
619.
3)
3.
(Pas
e 
619.
3)
4. 
(Pas
e 
619.
3)
5.
(Pas
e 
619.
3)
(Pase 616.4)
4. Centros 
de acopio, 
almacenamie
nto o 
bodegaje
1. 
(Pase 
616.1.
4)
2. 
(Pase 
Q620.
1)
93. 
(Pase 
Q620.
1)
(PROG: TRAER 
DEL 
DOCUMENT
O LUGARES, 
LISTA DE 
VEREDAS QUE 
CORRESPON
DAN AL 
MUNICIPIO 
REPORTADO 
EN Q210.2)
1. 
(Pas
e 
618.
4)
2. 
(Pas
e 
618.
4)
3. 
(Pas
e 
618.
4)
4. 
(Pas
e 
618.
4)
1. 
(Pase 
Q620.
1)
2.
(Pas
e 
619.
4)
3.
(Pas
e 
619.
4)
4. 
(Pas
e 
619.
4
5.
(Pas
e 
619.
4)
(Pase Q620.1)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 238
Q620.1. De las obras en infraestructura que se han realizado desde 2018 en (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q210.2 ), cuál considera usted que ha sido el que más beneficio 
le ha traído le ha traído a esta organización (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER LAS OPCIONES DE Q616 EN LAS QUE SE HAYA MARCADO CÓDIGO DIFERENTE A 1 EN Q618. SI EN TODAS LAS OPCIONES DE Q616 SE 
MARCÓ CÓDIGO 1 EN Q618, PASE A INTRO Q701)
1. Canchas o espacios deportivos
2. Centros comunitarios, auditorio o salón comunal
3. Plantas de procesamiento
4. Centros de acopio, almacenamiento o bodegaje
Q620.2. Cuáles son los TRES principales beneficios que este mantenimiento, rehabilitación o mejoramiento le trajo a la actividad económica y social de esta organización 
(ENC: TARJETA Q620.2, RECUERDELE QUE SON LOS 3 PRINCIPALES) (RM) (PROG: ACEPTAR HASTA TRES RESPUESTAS)
1. Menos costos de producción
2. Más productividad (con los mismos insumos, hubo un aumento en la producción)
3. Mejor calidad de los productos y servicios.
4. Mejor calidad de los procesos de producción
5. Mejor calidad de los procesos de comercialización
6. Más ventas
7. Más ingresos
8. Más volúmenes vendidos o comercializados
239 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
9. Más confianza entre sus asociados
10. Se generaron nuevas líneas de producción
11. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso de comercialización
12. Se generaron innovaciones en el proceso producción de las líneas de producción existentes
13. Garantizaron o aseguraron anticipadamente ventas
14. Aumentó el precio del bien o servicio
15. Se transformó la materia prima o producto fresco producido en un producto procesado
16. Reducción de tiempos de transporte
17. Reducción de costos de transporte
90. Ninguno (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
89. Otro ¿cuál?
CAPÍTULO VII: DIÁLOGOS MULTINIVEL
(ENC: LEA) PROG: SI Q215==4 MUESTRE: Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionada 
con PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA EN Q215.4. Ahora vamos a hablar del trabajo que ha realizado esta organización en la gestión del desarrollo territorial 
VII.1 Influencia de las organizaciones comunitarias
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 240
Q701. Desde 2018, ¿Esta organización ha participado en espacios o instancias de trabajo o discusión para el desarrollo del municipio … (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q210.2), y/o la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q701 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q702, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q710)
Q702. ¿En cuál(es) de los siguientes espacios o instancias de participación ciudadana relacionados con el desarrollo territorial de municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q210.2), y/o la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218) ha participado esta 
organización? (ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. Consejo Municipal de Desarrollo Rural (CMDR)
2. Formulación del plan de desarrollo municipal 2020-2023
3. Mesas sectoriales de cadenas productivas
4. Espacios Territoriales de Evaluación del programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad (espacio donde se presentan los proyectos de las 
organizaciones)
5. Reuniones de diagnóstico de necesidades y estructuración de 
actividades con Territorios de Oportunidad 
89. Otros espacios o instancias. ¿Cuál?
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q703.1, SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q703.2)
Q703. 1 Usualmente, por parte de esta organización, ¿qué perfil de miembros lidera la participación en espacios como (MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 1,2 3 O 
89)? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
241 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Presidente
2. Otros directivos
3. Miembros de base de la organización
4. Todos, no hay un perfil específico
Q703. 2 Usualmente, por parte de esta organización, ¿qué perfil de miembros lidera la participación en espacios como (PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702, SOLO SI 
MARCÓ COD 4 O 5)? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Presidente
2. Otros directivos
3. Miembros de base de la organización 
4. Todos, no hay un perfil específico
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q704.1, SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q704.2)
Q704.1 Usualmente, ¿con qué frecuencia usted participa como representante de esta organización en espacios como (PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702, SOLO SI 
MARCÓ COD 1,2 3 O 89)? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Cada vez que se llevan a cabo
2. Frecuentemente, pero no siempre que se lleva a cabo 
3. Rara vez 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 242
Q704.2 Usualmente, con qué frecuencia usted participa como representante de esta organización en espacios como (PROG MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702, SOLO SI 
MARCÓ COD 4 O 5)? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Cada vez que se llevan a cabo
2. Frecuentemente, pero no siempre que se lleva a cabo 
3. Rara vez 
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q705.1, SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q705.2)
Q705.1. Cómo califica la respuesta a las demandas, peticiones o sugerencias de esta organización que se han dado en el marco de la participación en espacios como (PROG: 
MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 1,2 3 o 89): (ENC: LEER) (RU)
1. Muy Buena 2.Buena 3 Regular (ni buena ni mala) 4. Mala 5. Muy mala
(PROG: EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q705.2)
Q705. 2. Cómo califica la respuesta a las demandas, peticiones o sugerencias de esta organización que se han dado en el marco de la participación en espacios como (PROG: 
MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 4 o 5): (ENC: LEER) (RU)
1. Muy Buena 2.Buena 3 Regular (ni buena ni mala) 4. Mala 5. Muy mala
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q706.1, SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q706.2
Q706.1 En el marco de estos espacios o instancias (PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 1,2 3 o 89), usualmente ¿con quiénes ha trabajado? (ENC: LEER) (RM)
243 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Organización(es) o empresa(s) privada(s) 
2. Entidad(es) pública(s)
3. Sector académico (universidades o centros de investigación) 
4. Organización (es) de base comunitaria
5. Agencias de cooperación 
90 Ninguno
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q706.2)
Q706.2 En el marco de estos espacios o instancias, CON QUIÉNES ha trabajado en (PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 4 o 5)? (ENC: LEER) (RM)?
1. Organización(es) o empresa(s) privada(s) 
2. Entidad(es) pública(s)
3. Sector académico (universidades o centros de investigación) 
4. Organización (es) de base comunitaria
5. Agencias de cooperación 
90. Ninguno
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q707.1, SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q707.2. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 244
Q707.1. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes 
afirmaciones relacionadas con el trabajo que ha desarrollado en espacios como ( PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 1,2 3 o 89) . 
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Incentivaron el surgimiento de nuevos liderazgos dentro de la 
organización 
1 2 3 4 5
2. Incentivaron la participación en procesos de planeación territorial 1 2 3 4 5
3. Incentivaron el aprovechamiento de oportunidades de desarrollo 
económico 
1 2 3 4 5
4. Incentivaron la creación de nuevas redes entre organizaciones 1 2 3 4 5
Q707.2. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes 
afirmaciones relacionadas con el trabajo que ha desarrollado en espacios como (PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702 COD 4 O 5). 
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Incentivaron el surgimiento de nuevos liderazgos dentro de la 
organización 
1 2 3 4 5
2. Incentivaron la participación en procesos de planeación territorial 1 2 3 4 5
3. Incentivaron el aprovechamiento de oportunidades de desarrollo 
económico 
1 2 3 4 5
4. Incentivaron la creación de nuevas redes entre organizaciones 1 2 3 4 5
245 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q708. Desde 2018, quién(es) han brindado apoyo a esta organización para la participación en estos espacios (PROG: MOSTRAR RESPUESTAS DE Q702) (ENC:LEA) (RM)
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional 
2. 
Gobierno 
local
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias 
4. 
Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios 
de 
Oportunidad 
6. 
Cooperación 
internacional 
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
8. (PROG: SI EN 
Q205 
RESPONDIO 2, 
MOSTRAR “Otra 
Junta de Acción 
Comunal; DE LO 
CONTRARIO, 
MOSTRAR “Junta 
de Acción 
Comunal”) 
89. 
Otro 
¿Cuál? 
90. Ninguno 
(PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
VII.3. Acción colectiva multi-actor y nuevos liderazgos 
Q709. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones relacionadas con esta organización. Siendo 1 “muy en 
desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo” (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Muy en 
desacuerdo
2 3 4 Muy de 
acuerdo
1. Desde 2018, han surgido nuevos líderes que encabezan el trabajo con otras entidades y organizaciones 1 2 3 4 5 
2. la organización participa en igualdad de condiciones respecto a los otros actores dentro de los espacios de 
discusión y trabajo para el desarrollo regional
1 2 3 4 5 
Q710. Desde 2018, cuál(es) han sido la(s) organización(es) comunitarias 
con las que han tenido trabajos, actividades o proyectos conjuntos 
relevantes para esta organización, máximo cite 3 organizaciones (ENC: 
PÍDALE QUE LAS DIGA UNA POR UNA PARA RESPONDER LAS 
Q711. A qué tipo de 
organizaciones corresponden 
(PROG: TRAER CADA 
Q712. Desde el punto de vista de esta 
organización, qué tan relevante para la 
organización ha sido el trabajo con... (PROG: 
TRAER CADA RESPUESTA DE Q710). 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 246
PREGUNTAS Q711 Y Q712 REFERIDAS A CADA UNA) (ENC: 
ESPONTANEA) (RU) 
(PROG: SE DEBEN PREGUNTAR Q711, Q712 POR CADA 
ORGANIZACIÓN)
RESPUESTA DE Q710) (ENC: 
LEA) (RU)
Siendo 1 “no tan relevante” y 3“muy 
relevante”. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
_______(PROG: TRAER DEL ARCHIVO LISTA DE ORGANIZACIONES 
V2.2 LAS CATEGORIAS CORRESPONDIENTES AL DEPARTAMENTO 
REGISTRADO EN Q210.1. MOSTRAR LISTA DESPLEGABLE. NO 
MOSTRAR ORGANIZACIÓN ASOCIADA AL ID DEL ENCUESTADO)
899. Otra ¿cuál? ___
900. Ninguna 
903. NS/NR
(PROG: SI SELECCIONA ALGUNA ORGANIZACIÓN DE LA LISTA 
PRECARGADA PASE A Q712.A, SI RESPONDE COD 89, PASE A Q711.A, 
SI RESPONDE COD 90 Ó 93 PASE A Q801)
A.
1. Juntas de Acción Comunal
2. Organizaciones Productoras o 
comercializadoras 
3. Otro tipo de organizaciones
(PROG: PASE A Q712.A)
A.
1. No tan relevante
2
3.. Muy relevante
(PROG: PASE A Q710.B)
B.
(PROG: TRAER DEL ARCHIVO LISTA DE ORGANIZACIONES V2.2 LAS 
CATEGORIAS CORRESPONDIENTES AL DEPARTAMENTO 
REGISTRADO EN Q210.1. MOSTRAR LISTA DESPLEGABLE NO 
MOSTRAR ORGANIZACIÓN ASOCIADA AL ID DEL ENCUESTADO)
899. Otra ¿cuál? ___
900. Ninguna 
B.
1. Juntas de Acción Comunal 
2. Organizaciones Productoras o 
comercializadoras 
B.
1. No tan relevante
2.
3. Muy relevante
247 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
903. NS/NR
(PROG: SI SELECCIONA ALGUNA ORGANIZACIÓN DE LA LISTA 
PRECARGADA PASE A Q712.B, SI RESPONDE COD 89, PASE A Q711.B, 
SI RESPONDE COD 90 Ó 93 PASE A Q801)
3. Otro tipo de organizaciones
(PROG: PASE A Q712.B)
(PROG: PASE A Q710.C)
C.
(PROG: TRAER DEL ARCHIVO LISTA DE ORGANIZACIONES V2.2 LAS 
CATEGORIAS CORRESPONDIENTES AL DEPARTAMENTO 
REGISTRADO EN Q210.1. MOSTRAR LISTA DESPLEGABLE NO 
MOSTRAR ORGANIZACIÓN ASOCIADA AL ID DEL ENCUESTADO)
899. Otra ¿cuál? ___
900. Ninguna 
903. NS/NR
(PROG: SI SELECCIONA ALGUNA ORGANIZACIÓN DE LA LISTA 
PRECARGADA PASE A Q712.C, SI RESPONDE COD 89, PASE A Q711.C, 
SI RESPONDE COD 90 Ó 93 PASE A Q801)
C.
1. Juntas de Acción Comunal 
2. Organizaciones Productoras o 
comercializadoras 
3. Otro tipo de organizaciones
(PROG: PASE A Q712.C)
C.
1. No tan relevante
2.
3. Muy relevante
(PROG: PASE A Q801)
CAPITULO VIII. CONTRIBUCIÓN A POLÍTICA PÚBLICA DE DESARROLLO TERRITORIAL
Q801. Desde 2018, esta organización ha participado en programas o proyectos impulsados por el Gobierno Nacional en el marco del Acuerdo del Proceso de Paz, 
relacionados con (ENC: LEA) (RU)
PROGRAMAS Sí No NS/NR
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 248
1. PNIS y/o PISDA (Programa Nacional Integral de Sustitución de Cultivos Ilícitos y/o el Plan Integral Municipal y Comunitario de Sustitución y 
Desarrollo Alternativo) 
1 2 93
2. PDET y/o PATR (Proyectos relacionados con los Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial o Planes de Acción para la Transformación 
Regional)
1 2 93
89. Otro ¿Cuál? (PROG: HABILITE EL CUAL SI RESPONDE COD 1) 1 2 93
(PROG: SI EN Q801.2 RESPONDIO COD 1 MUESTRE Q802, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q807)
Q802. En cuáles etapas ha participado esta organización en el marco de los Proyectos relacionados con los Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial -PDET- o Planes 
de Acción para la Transformación Regional -PATR- (ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. Reuniones de diagnóstico y planeación 
2. Ejecutor de contratos 
3. Veedor de obras
(PROG: SI EN Q802 RESPONDIO COD 2 MUESTRE Q803, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q807)
Q803. Cuántos contratos ha ejecutado esta organización: ____ (PROG: NUMERICO RANGO DE 1 A 100)
(PROG: SI EN Q803 RESPONDIO VALOR SUPERIOR A 1 MUESTRE Q804, SI RESPONDE VALOR 1 PASE A Q806)
Q804. Cuál ha sido el valor del contrato de mayor presupuesto $____ (PROG: NUMERICO RANGO $1000 EN ADELANTE)
Q804.1 (ENC: LEA) ¿Me puede confirmar si el valor del contrato de mayor presupuesto es (PROG: MUESTRE RESPUESTA REGISTRADA EN Q804)? 
1. Sí 2. No
249 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(PROG:SI Q804.1==2 REGRESE A Q804. SI Q804.1==1 PASE A Q806)
Q806. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones relacionadas con la participación de esta organización 
en Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial -PDET-. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Ha financiado actividades o proyectos relevantes para la organización 1 2 3 4 5
2. Ha construido o datado bienes y/o servicios relevantes para su vereda 1 2 3 4 5
3. Ha mejorado la capacidad operativa y/o administrativa de la organización 1 2 3 4 5
4. Ha ayudado a mejorar la economía de su vereda 1 2 3 4 5
5. Ha ayudado a mejorar la participación de la organización en la gestión en desarrollo local 1 2 3 4 5
Q807. Aparte de Territorios de Oportunidad ¿Esta organización ha participado en otros programas de desarrollo territorial? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI RESPONDE COD 1 EN Q807 MUESTRE Q808, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q301)
Q808. Esos programas eran financiados por (ENC: LEA) (RM)
Gobierno Nacional
Gobierno Local
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 250
USAID
Otras agencias de cooperación internacional
89. Otro 
(PROG: SI RESPONDE COD 3 O COD 4 EN Q808 MUESTRE Q809, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q301)
Q809. ¿Cuáles son los nombres de los programas de cooperación en los que esta organización ha participado?
__________(PROG: ABIERTA. MÁXIMO 100 CARACTERES)
CAPÍTULO III. CONTEXTO TERRITORIAL
III.1. Seguridad Territorial
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a conversar sobre la percepción que tiene esta organización sobre la seguridad territorial y el orden público en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218)
Q301. Cómo considera la situación actual de seguridad en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q218) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Muy Buena 2. Buena 3 Regular (ni buena ni mala) 3. Mala 4. Muy mala
Q302. Responda qué tan de acuerdo está con la siguiente afirmación relacionada con las actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy 
de acuerdo”. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
251 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Muy en 
desacuerdo
2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1.Ante los retos de seguridad de esta vereda, 
Territorios de Oportunidad ha hecho los 
ajustes necesarios en la ejecución de sus 
actividades 
1 2 3 4 5
Q303. Considera que la situación de seguridad para esta organización en esta vereda desde 2018: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Ha mejorado 2. Se mantiene igual de bien 3. Se mantiene igual de mal 4. Ha empeorado
Q304. Actualmente, de los siguientes problemas, ¿cuáles son los más graves asociados con la inseguridad que están enfrentando en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q218) y que han afectado a esta organización? (ENC: LEER, SE ACEPTAN MÍNIMO 
1 RESPUESTA, MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) (RM
1. Homicidios 
2. Grupos Armados Ilegales 
3. Minas antipersonales 
4. Desplazamiento 
5. Secuestro 
6. Extorsiones 
7. Inseguridad ciudadana (robos, atracos, etc.) 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 252
8. Reclutamiento forzado 
9. Violencia Sexual 
10. Narcotráfico 
89. Otro. ¿Cuál? _____
90. No hay problemas graves de inseguridad (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
III.2. Percepción sobre impactos de la emergencia sanitaria por COVID-19
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar de la emergencia o crisis ocasionada por el COVID-19 ….
Q305. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q305) Utilizando esta tarjeta, por favor dígame ¿cuál ha sido la principal consecuencia NEGATIVA que ha generado el COVID-19 sobre 
esta organización? (RU):
1. Menos capacidad de trabajo de los miembros 
2. Dificultó la comunicación o la frecuencia de reuniones internas
3. Dificultó trabajar con otras organizaciones o entidades
4. Dificultó el trabajo con el programa de Territorios de Oportunidad 
5. Menos ingresos de esta organización 
6. Menos asociados o miembros 
90. Ninguna
89. Otro ¿Cuál?
253 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q305.1. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q305.1) Y ahora, utilizando esta tarjeta, por favor dígame ¿cuál ha sido la principal consecuencia positiva que ha generado el COVID￾19 sobre esta organización (RU):
1. Más capacidad de trabajo de los miembros 
2. Mejoró la comunicación o la frecuencia de reuniones internas
3. Mejoró trabajar con otras organizaciones o entidades
4. Mejoró el trabajo con el programa de Territorios de Oportunidad 
5. Aumento ingresos de esta organización 
6. Más asociados o miembros 
7. Ninguna
89. Otro ¿Cuál?
FINAL 
Q901. Desde el punto de vista de esta organización, diga en máximo dos palabras ¿cuál es el principal asunto o 
necesidad que considera no ha sido resuelto y que es una prioridad para el desarrollo socioeconómico de la vereda 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q217 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q217 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA 
DE Q218)?
__________(PROG: ABIERTA. MÁXIMO 50 CARACTERES)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 254
Por último, permítame recordarle que la información que usted nos ha entregado será tratada de manera confidencial, sin embargo, le 
agradeceríamos que usted autorizara entregar la información que usted nos ha dado, en cuyo caso necesitaría su autorización declarada.
P.01. ¿Autoriza la entrega de sus datos de contacto? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Si
No
P.02. ¿Autoriza la entrega de sus respuestas? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
No
¡MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN!
INC1. ENCUESTADOR: POR FAVOR REGISTRE ABAJO TODAS LAS INCIDENCIAS DURANTE EL DESARROLLO DE LA ENCUESTA 
(PROG: ABIERTA)
255 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ENCUESTA A MIEMBROS DE ORGANIZACIONES DE BASE COMUNITARIA
IPSOS - NAPOLEÓN FRANCO
21-011809-01-03 -Territorios de Oportunidades- Miembros V2.5
Abril 2020
ID
Hora de inicio 
(formato militar):
Hora de terminación
(formato militar):
Fecha de
la encuesta:
DD MM AA 
21
DATOS DEL ENCUESTADOR / SUPERVISOR / COORDINADOR
Entrevistador: C.C.:
Supervisor: C.C.:
Coordinador: C.C.:
Fecha de Supervisión: / / 2021 Fecha de Revisión: / / 2021
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 256
Revisor de Critica Revisada ___ Tabulada ___ Rev. Final ___
Nombre:
Supervisión:
Presencial 1 Directa Personal 2 
C.C.: Directa Tel. 3 No supervisada 4 
Encuesta verificada Sí 1 No 2 
RESULTADO
Anulado 1 No contactado 4 
Nombre: Observado 2 No colabora 5 
C.C. Efectivo 3 
Fecha Verificación: TIPO VERIFICACIÓN Presencial 1 Telefónica 2 
(PROG: NO MOSTRAR AL ENCUESTADOR, TRAER DEL LLCC EL NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
(PROG: NO MOSTRAR AL ENCUESTADOR, TRAER DEL LLCC TIPO Y REGION (REGION ES VARIABLE DE CONTROL DE CUOTAS))
Buenos días, tardes, mi nombre es (ENC MENCIONE SU NOMBRE), y trabajo en estudio para IPSOS, una empresa privada dedicada a la investigación de mercados y de opinión 
pública. Actualmente nos encontramos desarrollando un estudio sobre las organizaciones que han participado en el programa Territorios de Oportunidad y su opinión nos será 
valiosa para los propósitos de la investigación. Usted fue escogido por ser un miembro de una de las organizaciones beneficiarias del programa. Su participación es voluntaria, su 
identidad y las respuestas suministradas serán de carácter confidencial, ya que, los datos se utilizarán únicamente para fines estadísticos, Garantizamos confidencialidad de su 
identidad, de acuerdo al código de ética de ESOMAR y de la ley de Protección de Datos por los cuales nos regimos, usted podría ser contactado posteriormente a fines de 
control de calidad. Esta encuesta puede ser grabada o monitoreada como control interno de calidad. Su participación es muy valiosa porque contribuirá a la mejora de los 
programas de desarrollo territorial en Colombia, enfocado en el fortalecimiento de organizaciones, como la suya. Por favor, le agradecería que me dedicara unos 60 minutos 
para responderme unas preguntas.
Para cualquier inquietud puede comunicarse con Cristina Querubín, correo Cristina.Querubin@ipsos.com en Bogotá.
F0. Con estas precisiones ¿acepta participar en la presente encuesta? (RU)
257 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Sí 2. No (ENC: AGRADEZCA Y TERMINE) (PROG: TERMINE)
F01. ¿Usted acepta ser grabado en esta encuesta? (RU)
1. Sí 2. No (PROG: DETENGA EL GRABADOR)
CAPÍTULO I. PERFIL DEL MIEMBRO DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN 
I.I. Verificación del perfil
Q101. Vamos a hablar sobre la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN), usted pertenece actualmente a esta? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
1. Si pertenece 2. Perteneció en el pasado, pero actualmente no pertenece 3. Nunca ha pertenecido
 
(PROG: SI RESPONDE EN Q101 COD 2 ó 3, TERMINE)
I. 2. Identificación y lugar de vivienda del encuestado
Q102. ¿Cuál es su nombre completo (PROG: ABIERTA) (ENC: LEA)
1. Primer 
nombre
2. Segundo nombre 
(PROG: OPCIONAL) 3. Primer apellido 4. Segundo Apellido 
(PROG: OPCIONAL)
 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 258
Q103. ¿Cuál es su identidad de género? (ENC: LEA) (RU) 
1. Hombre 2. Mujer 89. Otra identidad de género
Q104. Cuántos años cumplidos tiene:
1.______ (PROG: CAMPO NUMERICO, RANGO DE 18 EN ADELANTE, SI RESPONDE MENOS DE 18, TERMINAR LA ENCUESTA) (ENC: SI ES MENOR DE 18 AÑOS AGRADEZCA Y TERMINE)
Q105. En dónde vive usted actualmente.: (ENC: LEA)
1. Departamento 
(RU)
(PROG: MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE DEPARTAMENTOS, AGREGUE BUSCADOR) (ENC: 
SELECCIONE EL DEPARTAMENTO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
2. Municipio (RU) (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL DEPARTAMENTO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q105.1, MUESTRE 
DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE MUNICIPIOS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE DEPARTAMENTO, 
AGREGUE BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL MUNICIPIO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
Q106. Usted habita en: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Cabecera municipal 2. Resto (zonas rurales- centros poblados y rural disperso) 
(PROG: SÍ RESPONDIÓ EN Q106 COD 2 MUESTRE Q107, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q108).
Q107. Cuál es el nombre de la vereda en que usted habita (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU)
259 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Vereda (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL MUNICIPIO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q105.2, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE MUNICIPIO, HABILITAR 
BUSCADOR PARA QUE SEA MAS FACIL PARA EL ENCUESTADOR ENCONTRAR POR UNA PALABRA EL NOMBRE DE LA VEDREDA) (ENC: SELECCIONE LA VEREDA QUE INDIQUE LA 
PERSONA)
89. Otra ¿Cuál? _____
Q108. Hace cuánto tiempo vive en el municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q105.2) __________ (PROG: NUMERICA, ACEPTAR DE CERO “0” EN ADELANTE) (ENC: PREGUNTE EL TIEMPO EN 
AÑOS)
(PROG: SI LA RESPUESTA DE Q108 ES DIFERENTE A LA DADA EN Q104 MUESTRE Q109 DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q110.) 
Q109. ¿Cuál fue la razón principal para cambiar la residencia y venirse a vivir en el municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q105.2)? 
(ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
1. Ausencia de medios de subsistencia
2. Riesgo o consecuencia de desastre natural (inundación, avalancha, deslizamiento, terremoto, etc.)
3. Amenaza o riesgo para su vida, su libertad o su integridad física, ocasionada por la violencia
4. Necesidad de educación
5. Porque se casó o formó pareja
6. Motivos de salud
7. Mejorar la vivienda o localización
8. Mejores oportunidades laborales o de negocio
89. Otra. ¿Cuál?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 260
I.3. Características socioeconómicas del encuestado
Q110. De acuerdo con su cultura, pueblo o rasgos físicos, usted es o se reconoce como (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Indígena 2. Gitano(a) 
(ROM)
3. Negro (a), Mulato (a) 
(afrodescendiente), 
Afrocolombiano
4. Raizal del archipiélago 
de San Andrés, 
Providencia y Santa 
Catalina
5. Palenquero (a) de San 
Basilio
90. 
Ninguno 
Q111. ¿Cuál es el título o diploma de mayor nivel educativo que Usted ha recibido? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
90. Ninguno 1. Primaria 2. Bachiller 3. Técnico o tecnológico 4. Universitario 5. Postgrado (especialización, maestría, 
doctorado) 
Q112. ¿En qué actividad ocupó...... la mayor parte del tiempo la semana pasada? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Trabajando
2. Buscando trabajo
3. Estudiando
4. Oficios del hogar
5. Incapacitado permanente para trabajar
89. Otra actividad. ¿Cuál?
261 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
(PROG: SI EN Q112 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q113. DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q201)
Q113. En este trabajo… es: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Empleado u obrero de empresa particular
2. Empleado u obrero del gobierno
3. Empleado doméstico
4. Trabajador por cuenta propia o independiente 
5. Patrón o empleador
6. Trabajador familiar sin remuneración
7. Trabajador sin remuneración en empresas o negocios de otros hogares
8. Jornalero o peón
89. Otro. ¿Cuál?
Q114. Por el desarrollo de este trabajo recibe ingresos: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q114 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q115; SÍ RESPONDIÓ COD 2, PASE A Q117)
Q115. Desde qué año el desarrollo de esta actividad económica le genera ingresos: ________ (PROG: NUMERICO, 4 DIGITOS, NO MAYOR A 2021) 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 262
Q116. Desde (PROG: SI EN Q115 RESPONDIÓ 2018 O UN AÑO ANTERIOR, MUESTRE 2018; SÍ RESPONDIÓ UN AÑO POSTERIOR A 2018, TRAER RESPUESTA A Q115) los ingresos de este trabajo 
han (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Aumentado 2. Disminuido 3. Siguen igual 93. NS/NR
Q117. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q117) A qué actividad está relacionada el trabajo que desarrolla como (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q113) ?: (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU)
1. Agropecuaria (producción agrícola- ej. café, cacao, coco, frutas, etc.- producción pecuaria, -ej. Ganadería, piscicultura, etc.-) 
2. Artesanías
3. Servicios de turismo (alojamiento, servicio de guía, agencias de viaje, recreacionistas, etc.)
4. Actividades musical y otras expresiones artísticas o culturales
5. Actividades deportivas o de recreación
6. Actividades de servicios de alimentos y restaurantes (cocineros, meseros, panaderos, etc.) 
7. Industria manufacturera 
8. Comercio de productos al por menor o al por mayor
9. Servicios informáticos y de telecomunicaciones, producción de contenidos comunicacionales y/o publicitarios.
10. Actividades de servicios administrativos y de apoyo 
11. Construcción 
12. Transporte y almacenamiento 
14. Explotación de minas y canteras
263 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
15. Suministro de electricidad, gas, vapor y aire acondicionado
16. Administración pública y defensa
17. Educación 
18.Actividades financieras y de seguros 
19. Actividades de atención de la salud humana y de asistencia social
20. Actividades de seguridad e investigación privada 
89. Otro ¿Cuál? 
Q118. En dónde desarrolla principalmente este trabajo: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: MUESTRE 1. OPCIÓN 1 SI RESPONDIÓ COD 1 EN Q106)
1.OPCIÓN 1
1. Cabecera municipal de… (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA 
DE Q105.2)
2. En una vereda del municipio… (PROG: TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q105.2)
3. En un municipio diferente a ... 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q105.2) 
(PROG: MUESTRE 2. OPCIÓN 2 SI RESPONDIÓ COD 2 EN Q106)
2.OPCIÓN 2
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 264
1. Vereda de… (PROG: TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q107)
2. En la cabecera municipal de… (PROG: 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q105.2)
3. En otra vereda del municipio… 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q105.2)
4. En un municipio diferente a ... 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q105.2)
(PROG: SI EN Q118 1. OPCIÓN 1 RESPONDIÓ COD 2, Ó, EN 2. OPCIÓN 2 RESPONDIÓ COD 3, MUESTRE Q119)
(PROG: SI EN Q118 1. OPCIÓN 1 RESPONDIÓ COD 3, Ó, EN 2. OPCIÓN 2 RESPONDIÓ COD 4, PASE Q120)
(PROG: SI EN Q118 1. OPCIÓN 1 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, Ó, EN 2. OPCIÓN 2 RESPONDIÓ 1 O 2, PASE Q121)
Q119. Cuál es el nombre de la principal vereda de (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q105.2) donde usted desarrolla su trabajo: (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU): 
1. Vereda (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL MUNICIPIO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q105.2, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE MUNICIPIO, AGREGAR 
BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE LA VEREDA QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
89. Otra ¿Cuál? _____
(PROG: PASE Q121)
Q120. Cuál es el nombre del principal municipio donde usted desarrolla su trabajo (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) : 
1. Departamento 
(RU)
(PROG: MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE DEPARTAMENTOS, AGREGAR BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL DEPARTAMENTO QUE 
INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
2. Municipio (RU) (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL DEPARTAMENTO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q120.1, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE MUNICIPIOS QUE 
CORRESPONDEN A ESE DEPARTAMENTO, AGREGAR BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL MUNICIPIO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
120A Cuál es el nombre de la principal vereda de (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q120.2) donde usted desarrolla su trabajo: (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU): 
265 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Vereda (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL MUNICIPIO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q120.2, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE MUNICIPIO, AGREGAR 
BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE LA VEREDA QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
89. Otra ¿Cuál? _____
Q121. Desde 2018, de quién(es) ha recibido apoyo para desarrollar su trabajo de (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q113) (ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional 
2. 
Gobierno 
local 
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias 
4. 
Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios 
de 
Oportunidad 
6. Junta 
de 
Acción 
Comunal 
7.Cooperación 
internacional 
8. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
89. 
Otro 
¿Cuál? 
___
90. Ninguno 
(PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
CAPÍTULO II. CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA ORGANIZACIÓN 
II.1. Perfil del encuestado dentro de la organización
Ahora, vamos a hablar sobre la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
Q201. Aproximadamente, cuántos años lleva dentro de esta organización ______ (PROG: NUMERICO, RANGO DE 0 A 95)
Q202. ¿Para pertenecer a la organización se debe pagar algún tipo de cuota? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q202 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q203, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q204)
Q203. ¿Cuál es el valor de la cuota de la organización al año? $_______ (PROG: NUMERICO, RANGO DE 100 HASTA 1000.000)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 266
Q203.1 (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q203.1) De las siguientes opciones, cuál describe de mejor manera la naturaleza, dedicación o tipo de esta organización (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU):
1 Asociación de productores y/o comercializadores
2. Junta de Acción Comunal -JAC
3. Asociación de JAC
4. Organización étnica (ej. consejos comunitarios de comunidades afrodescendientes, comunidades indígenas, etc.)
5. Veeduría ciudadana 
6. Organizaciones de población desplazada, población retornada o población vulnerable
7. Grupo voluntario de trabajo con la comunidad o de apoyo para población necesitada
8. Grupo de conservación del medio ambiente
9. Grupo deportivo y/o cultural
10. Grupo de LGBTI 
11. Grupo de mujeres
12. Grupos juveniles
13. Organizaciones educativas (asociación de padres de familia, grupos de estudiantes, etc.)
14. Junta de programación de emisoras comunitarias
15. Asociación de vigilancia y seguridad 
267 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
16. Movimiento político
17. Sindicato 
18. Grupos de comunicaciones
89. Otra ¿Cuál? 
Q203.2 (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q203.2) De las siguientes opciones, cuál describe de MEJOR manera su rol dentro de la organización (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU):
1 Dignatario o directivo de la organización 
2. Lidera o coordina un comité de trabajo
3. Pertenece o es miembro de un comité de trabajo
90. Ninguno
89. Otra ¿Cuál? 
Q203.3 (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q203.3) De las siguientes opciones, cuál describe de MEJOR manera sus PRINCIPALES tareas o actividades dentro de la organización (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) 
(RU):
1. Administrativas
2. Para la producción de bienes o servicios de la organización
3. Para la comercialización de bienes o venta de servicios de la organización
90. Ninguno 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 268
89. Otra ¿Cuál? 
II.2. Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad en las que participa la organización
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar de la participación de esta organización en el programa Territorios de Oportunidad
Q204. Usted conoce que esta organización ha participado en el programa Territorios de Oportunidad (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(ENC: CUANDO MUESTRE LA TABLET, DIGALE AL ENCUESTADO QUE ESTAS SON LAS ACTIVIDADES EN QUE HA PARTICIPADO SU ORGANIZACIÓN CON TERRITOROS DE OPORTUNIDAD 
Y QUE DURANTE LA ENCUESTA LE HAREMOS PREGUNTAS SOBRE ESTO)
(PROG: SI EN Q204 RESPONDE COD 2, PARA CADA ORGANIZACIÓN TRAER DE LLCC LAS SIGUIENTES VARIABLES EN DONDE HAYA RESPUESTA Y MOSTRAR CON LA SIGUIENTE 
ESTRUCTURA)
ACTIVIDAD OBJETIVO GENERAL
1. (PROG: TRAER DEL LLCC RESPUESTA DE LA VARIABLE ActivityName1 ) 1. (PROG: TRAER DEL LLCC RESPUESTA DE LA VARIABLE 
GeneralObjective1)
2. (PROG: TRAER DEL LLCC RESPUESTA DE LA VARIABLE ActivityName2 ) 2. (PROG: TRAER DEL LLCC RESPUESTA DE LA VARIABLE 
GeneralObjective2)
3. (PROG: TRAER DEL LLCC RESPUESTA DE LA VARIABLE ActivityName3 ) 3. (PROG: TRAER DEL LLCC RESPUESTA DE LA VARIABLE 
GeneralObjective3)
269 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q205. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q205) De las siguientes opciones, cuales describen de mejor manera los componentes o áreas de las actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad en las que esta 
organización ha participado (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RM)
1. Fortalecimiento de las 
capacidades internas de la 
organización
2. Fortalecimiento de 
las actividades 
económicas 
3. Gestión de infraestructura (por ejemplo, placa 
huella en vía, alcantarillas en vías provisión de 
energía, infraestructura educativa, de salud o para la 
producción, entre otras)
4. Participación y diálogo con 
otras organizaciones o 
entidades públicas y privadas
5. Medios de comunicación, (por 
ejemplo, radio, televisión, prensa, 
redes sociales, entre otras).
93. NS/NR (PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
Q206. Responda qué tan de acuerdo está con la siguiente afirmación. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Las actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad responden a las necesidades de esta 
organización
1 2 3 4 5
Q207A ¿En cuál municipio se concentra su mayor actividad económica o social con la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN) ?: (ENC: LEA)
1. Departamento 
(RU)
(PROG: TRAER DE DOCUMENTO LUGARES, LISTA DE DEPARTAMENTOS) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL 
DEPARTAMENTO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
2. Municipio (RU) (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL DEPARTAMENTO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q207A.1, MUESTRE 
DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE MUNICIPIOS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE DEPARTAMENTO) (ENC: 
SELECCIONE EL MUNICIPIO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
Q207. ¿En cuál de las veredas donde opera Territorios de Oportunidad en el municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207A.2), se concentra su mayor actividad económica o social con esta organización? 
(ENC: ESPONTANEA) (RU) 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 270
(PROG: TRAER DEL DOCUMENTO LUGARES, LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDAN AL MUNICIPIO REPORTADO EN Q207A.2)
89. Otra ¿Cuál? ___
998 No sabe
999 No responde
(PROG: SI EN Q207 RESPONDE COD 89 Ó 998, Ó 999, MUESTRE Q208 DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q209)
Q208. Ahora, de las siguientes veredas del municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207A.2) en cuál considera usted que se concentra su mayor actividad económica y social con esta organización. ENC: 
MUESTRE LA TABLET AL ENCUESTADO PARA QUE SELECCIONE LA RESPUESTA, UNA VEZ SELECCIONE LA RESPUESTA PIDA LA TABLET DE REGRESO) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER DEL DOCUMENTO LUGARES, LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDAN AL MUNICIPIO REPORTADO EN Q207A.2)
Q209. Responda qué tan de acuerdo está con la siguiente afirmación. Siendo 1 “muy en desacuerdo” y 5 “muy de acuerdo”. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. Las actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad responden a las necesidades de la vereda 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 
999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208)
1 2 3 4 5
CAPÍTULO IV. CAPACIDADES
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar sobre su participación en esta organización….
(PROG: SI Q205==1 MUESTRE: Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionadas con (PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA Q205.1 SI 
EN Q205=1)) 
271 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q401. Por favor responda que tanto … (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Mucho Algo Poco Nada
1. Se siente e representado por los líderes o directivos 1 2 3 4
2. Los líderes o directivos de la organización podrían mejorar su gestión 1 2 3 4
3. El trabajo que se realiza en la organización responde a las metas y objetivos de esta organización 1 2 3 4
4. Conoce sus funciones, roles o tareas dentro de esta organización 1 2 3 4
Q402. Considera que la participación en Territorios de Oportunidad ha mejorado las capacidades de 
(PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
para (PROG OPCIONES DE Q402) (ENC: LEA TODAS, INCLUYENDO NS/NR o No aplica) (RU)
Q403. Cómo califica este apoyo brindado para (PROG OPCIONES DE Q402) (ENC: 
LEA) (RU)
Sí No NS/NR No aplica Muy bueno Bueno Regular 
(ni buena 
ni mala)
Malo Muy malo NS/NR
1. Organizar y documentar los 
procesos administrativos de la 
organización 
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.1)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.2)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.2)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.2)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.2)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.2)
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.2)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.2)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.2)
2. Organizar y documentar los 
procesos financieros 
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.2)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.3)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.3)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.3)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.3)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.3)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.3)
4.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.3)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.3)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.3)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 272
3. Resolver conflictos internos
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.3)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.4)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.4)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.4)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.4)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.4)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.4)
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.4)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.4)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.4)
4. Mejorar la comunicación entre los 
asociados y los líderes o directivos
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.4)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.5)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.5)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.5)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.5)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.5)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.5)
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.5)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.5)
93. (PROG: 
Pase Q402.5)
5. Mejorar las relaciones con el sector 
privado y público
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.5)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.6)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.6)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.6)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.6)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.6)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.6)
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.6)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.6)
93. (PROG: 
Pase Q402.6)
6. Fortalecer o crear proyectos o 
negocios
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.6)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.7)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.7)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.7)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.7)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.7)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.7)
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.7)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.7)
93. (PROG: 
Pase Q402.7)
7. Definir o proponer cómo mejorar 
los resultados de la organización
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.7)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.8)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.8)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.8)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q402.8)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.8)
3.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.8)
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.8)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q402.8)
93. (PROG: 
Pase Q402.8)
8. Organizar y documentar los 
procesos productivos
1.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q403.8)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q404)
93.
(PROG: Pase 
Q404)
94.
(PROG: Pase 
Q404)
1.
(PROG: Pase 
Q404)
2.
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q404)
3. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q404
4. 
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q404)
5.
(PROG: 
Pase Q404)
93. (PROG: 
Pase Q404)
Q404. ¿Qué tanto confía usted en los demás miembros de esta organización? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
273 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Nada 2. Poco 3. Algo a Mucho
Q405. ¿Considera usted que las personas de esta organización están dispuestos a lograr acuerdos y a realizar acciones conjuntas para la obtención de propósitos comunes? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Nada 2. Poco 3. Algo a Mucho
Q406. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q406) ¿De los siguientes problemas seleccione el o los problemas más graves asociados con los procesos organizativos que están enfrentando esta organización? (ENC: 
LEA TODAS LAS OPCIONES SI ES NECESARIO, SE ACEPTAN MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) (RM) (PROG: ACEPTAR MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS):
1. La gente es muy desconfiada
2. A la gente no le interesa participar
3. Cuando se organiza un grupo el trabajo en equipo es muy difícil
4. La gente no tiene la formación necesaria para los procesos organizativos
5. Los trabajos organizativos no se proyectan hacia afuera para conseguir los apoyos necesarios
6. Las autoridades no facilitan los procesos organizativos
7. Otros grupos políticos lo hacen difícil
89. Otro. ¿cuál? ____
90. Ninguno (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 274
CAPÍTULO V. DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO 
IV.1. Percepción sobre la situación económica territorial 
(PROG: SI Q205==2 ó 5 MUESTRE) Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionadas con 
(PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA Q205.2 SI EN Q205=2 Y RESPUESTA Q205.5 SI EN Q205=5) 
Q501. Desde 2018, ¿Considera usted que la situación económica de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 
999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) ENC: LEA) (RU)?
1. Ha mejorado 2. Se mantiene igual de bien 3. Se mantiene igual de mal 4. Ha empeorado
Q502. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q502) Cuál es el principal factor que usted considera ha potenciado o favorecido el desarrollo de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA 
DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU)?
1. Fortalecimiento de las 
organizaciones comunitarias y 
sus capacidades internas 
2. Fortalecimiento de la 
actividad económica, 
laboral o productiva local 
3. Mejoramiento de los servicios públicos y la 
infraestructura (por ejemplo, placa huella en vía, alcantarillas 
en vías provisión de energía, infraestructura educativa, de 
salud o para la producción, entre otras)
4. Trabajo conjunto entre 
organizaciones de la población 
con organismos privados y 
públicos.
89. 
Otro. 
Cuál___
Q503. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q503) Cuál es el principal factor que usted considera NECESARIO para el desarrollo de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU)?
1. Fortalecimiento de las 
organizaciones comunitarias y 
sus capacidades internas 
2. Fortalecimiento de la 
actividad económica, laboral 
o productiva local 
3. Mejoramiento de los servicios públicos y la 
infraestructura (por ejemplo, placa huella en vía, 
alcantarillas en vías provisión de energía, infraestructura 
educativa, de salud o para la producción, entre otras)
4. Trabajo conjunto entre 
organizaciones de la población 
con organismos privados y 
públicos.
89. Otro. 
Cuál__
275 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
IV.2. Aprovechamiento de oportunidades
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar sobre su actividad económica…
Q504. Desde 2018, en general considera usted que su situación económica... (ENC: LEA) (RU)?
1. Ha mejorado 2. Se mantiene igual de bien 3. Se mantiene igual de mal 4. Ha empeorado
Q505. Desde el 2018, en el marco de su participación en la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN), ha recibido apoyo para el trabajo de 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q113) en el área de (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q117) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q505 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q506, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q508)
Q506. Desde 2018, para el desarrollo de este 
trabajo, ha recibido apoyo con (PROG: FRASES 
DE Q506)? (ENC: LEA TODAS LAS 
OPCIONES) (RU)
Q507. De quiénes han recibido recursos (en $ o trabajo) para (PROG: FRASES DE Q506)? (ENC: NO LEA 
OPCIONES DE Q507) (RM)
FRASES Sí No 
NS/N
R 
No 
aplica 
Gobie
rno 
Nacio
nal 
Gobie
rno 
local 
Otras 
organizaci
ones 
comunitar
ias 
Secto
r 
priva
do
Program
a 
Territori
os de 
Oportun
idad 
Coopera
ción 
internaci
onal
(PROG: TRAER DE 
LLCC 
NOMBRE_ORGANI
ZACIÓN)
(PROG: SI 
EN 203.1 
RESPON
DIO 2, 
MOSTRA
R TEXTO 
“Otra 
Junta de 
Acción 
Comunal”
; DE LO 
CONTRA
Otro 
¿Cuál
? __ 
Ningu
no 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 276
RIO, 
MOSTRA
R TEXTO 
“Junta de 
Acción 
Comunal”
)
1. Asistencia 
técnica o 
capacitacione
s para la 
producción 
del bien o 
servicio
1
(Pase 
Q507
.1)
2
(Pase 
Q506
.2)
93 
(Pase 
Q506
.2)
94
(Pase 
Q506
.2)
1
(Pase 
Q506.
2)
2
(Pase 
Q506.
2)
3
(Pase 
Q506.2)
4
(Pase 
Q506
.2)
5
(Pase 
Q506.2)
6
(Pase 
Q506.2)
7 (Pase Q506.2) 8 (Pase 
Q506.2)
89
(Pase 
Q506
.2)
90
(Pase 
Q506
.2)
2. 
Financiamient
o directo
1
(Pase 
Q507
.2)
2
(Pase 
Q506
.3)
93 
(Pase 
Q506
.3)
94 
(Pase 
Q506
.3)
1
(Pase 
Q506.
3)
2
(Pase 
Q506.
3)
3
(Pase 
Q506.3)
4
(Pase 
Q506
.3)
5
(Pase 
Q506.3)
6
(Pase 
Q506.3)
7 (Pase Q506.3) 8 (Pase 
Q506.3)
89
(Pase 
Q506
.3)
90
(Pase 
Q506
.3)
3. Crédito
1
(Pase 
Q507
.3)
2
(Pase 
Q506
.4)
93 
(Pase 
Q506
.4)
94 
(Pase 
Q506
.4
1
(Pase 
Q506.
4)
2
(Pase 
Q506.
4)
3
(Pase 
Q506.4)
4
(Pase 
Q506
.4)
5
(Pase 
Q506.4)
6
(Pase 
Q506.4)
7 (Pase Q506.4) 8 (Pase 
Q506.4)
89
(Pase 
Q506
.4)
90
(Pase 
Q506
.4)
4. 
Equipos/maq
uinaria o 
insumos 
/materias 
primas para 
la 
producción 
de su 
1
(Pase 
Q507
.4)
2
(Pase 
Q506
.5)
93 
(Pase 
Q506
.5)
94
(Pase 
Q506
.5
1
(Pase 
Q506.
5)
2
(Pase 
Q506.
5)
3
(Pase 
Q506.5)
4
(Pase 
Q506
.5)
5
(Pase 
Q506.5)
6
(Pase 
Q506.5)
7 (Pase Q506.5) 8 (Pase 
Q506.5)
89
(Pase 
Q506
.5)
90
(Pase 
Q506
.5)
277 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
producto o 
servicio
5. La 
Comercializa
ción o 
divulgación 
del producto 
o servicio de 
esta 
organización
1
(Pase 
Q507
.5)
2
(Pase 
Q508
)
93 
(Pase 
Q508
)
94 
(Pase 
Q508
)
1
(Pase 
Q508)
2
(Pase 
Q508)
3
(Pase 
Q508)
4
(Pase 
Q508
)
5
(Pase 
Q508)
6
(Pase 
Q508)
7 (Pase Q508) 8 (Pase 
Q508)
89
(Pase 
Q508
)
90
(Pase 
Q508
)
V.3. Dinamización de la economía social 
Q508. ¿Considera usted que personas de veredas diferentes a la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) vienen a trabajar a la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q208)? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q508 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q509, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q510)
Q509. De dónde provienen la mayoría de las personas que vienen a trabajar a la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 
998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208), (ENC: PREGUNTE LA/S VEREDA/S O MUNICIPIO DIFERENTE, PUEDE SELECCIONAR HASTA 2 RESPUESTAS) (RM) (PROG: 
PUEDE SELECCIONAR MAXIMO 2 OPCIONES DE LA LISTA)
1. Vereda/s (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL MUNICIPIO QUE SELECCIONE DE Q207A.2, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDEN A 
ESE MUNICIPIO, AGREGAR BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE LA O LAS VEREDAS QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
1000. De un municipio diferente a (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207A.2)
(PROG: SI RESPONDIO COD 1000 EN Q509 MUESTRE Q509.A, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q510)
509A. Cuál es el nombre del principal municipio de dónde vienen a trabajar (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA):
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 278
1. Departamento 
(RU)
(PROG: MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE DEPARTAMENTOS, AGREGAR BUSCADOR) (ENC: 
SELECCIONE EL DEPARTAMENTO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
2. Municipio (RU) (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL DEPARTAMENTO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q509A.1, MUESTRE 
DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE MUNICIPIOS QUE CORRESPONDEN A ESE DEPARTAMENTO, 
AGREGAR BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE EL MUNICIPIO QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
509B. Cuál es el nombre de la principal vereda de dónde vienen a trabajar desde (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DEL MUNICIPIO 509A.2.)
1. Vereda (PROG: DEPENDIENDO DEL MUNICIPIO QUE SELECCIONE EN Q509A.2, MUESTRE DESPLEGABLE DE LA LISTA DE VEREDAS QUE CORRESPONDEN A 
ESE MUNICIPIO, AGREGAR BUSCADOR) (ENC: SELECCIONE LA VEREDA QUE INDIQUE LA PERSONA)
89. Otra ¿Cuál? _____
Q510. Desde 2018, ¿desde la organización se ha identificado la aparición de alguna actividad económica que emplea un número importante de personas de esta organización y 
que antes no era común? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q510 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q511, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q601)
Q511. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q511) ¿En qué sector? (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU)
1. Agropecuaria (producción agrícola- ej. café, cacao, coco, frutas, etc.- producción pecuaria, -ej. Ganadería, piscicultura, etc.-) 
2. Artesanías
3. Servicios de turismo (alojamiento, servicio de guía, agencias de viaje, recreacionistas, etc.)
4. Actividades musical y otras expresiones artísticas o culturales
279 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
5. Actividades deportivas o de recreación
6. Actividades de servicios de alimentos y restaurantes (cocineros, meseros, panaderos, etc.)
7. Industria manufacturera
8. Comercio de productos al por menor o al por mayor
9. Servicios informáticos y de telecomunicaciones, producción de contenidos comunicacionales y/o publicitarios.
10. Actividades de servicios administrativos y de apoyo
11. Construcción
12. Transporte y almacenamiento
12. Explotación de minas y canteras
13. Suministro de electricidad, gas, vapor y aire acondicionado
14. Administración pública y defensa
15. Educación
16.Actividades financieras y de seguros
17. Actividades de atención de la salud humana y de asistencia social
18. Actividades de seguridad e investigación privada
89. Otro ¿Cuál?
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 280
CAPÍTULO VI. PROVISIÓN DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS
VI.1. Involucramiento de las comunidades en la provisión de bienes y servicios 
(PROG: SI Q205==3 MUESTRE) Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionadas con 
(PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA Q205.3 SI EN Q205=3)
Q601. Desde 2018, ¿Como miembro de (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
ha participado en proyectos de construcción y/o mantenimiento de bienes y servicios públicos o infraestructura, por ejemplo, mejoramiento de vías, provisión de energía, 
infraestructura educativa, de salud o para la producción, entre otras? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q601 RESPONDIÓ COD 1, MUESTRE Q602, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q608)
Q602. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q602) En qué tipo de tarea(s) ha participado: (ENCLEER SI ES NECESARIO) (RM)
1. Diseño o planeación (planificación de la obra)
2. Implementación o ejecución (jornalear o aportar mano de obra)
3. Supervisión o interventoría (hacer veeduría o vigilancia del desarrollo de la obra)
4. Operación (participar en el funcionamiento de la obra)
(PROG: SI EN Q602 RESPONDIÓ COD 2 MUESTRE Q603, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q604)
Q603. Específicamente en el marco de la implementación o ejecución del proyecto de construcción y/o mantenimiento de bienes y servicios públicos en el que esta 
organización ha participado. Indique quién toma la mayoría de las veces las decisiones relacionadas con… (ENC: LEA) (RU)
281 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
El presidente Junta Directiva Asamblea de asociados o miembros
1. Ejecución de recursos 1 2 3
2. Desarrollo del soporte documental 1 2 3
Q604. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q604) De los proyectos en los que ha participado, en qué área/s han sido los principales proyectos (ENC: LEA TODAS LAS 
OPCIONES, SE ACEPTAN MINIMO 1 RESPUESTA, MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) (RM) (ENC: LEER SI ES NECESARIO) (RM): 
1. Placa huella en vías 
2. Centros educativos 
3. Centro de salud
4. Sistema de alcantarillado 
5. Provisión de internet 
6. Provisión de energía eléctrica 
7. Provisión de sistemas de riego/drenaje
8. Escenarios deportivos 
9. Centros de acopio
10. Planta de procesamiento 
11. Alcantarillas en vías
12. Puentes
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 282
89. Otro. ¿cuál?
(PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIÓ MAS DE UNA OPCIÓN, MUESTRE Q605, DE LO CONTRARIO PASE A Q606)
Q605. De los proyectos en los que ha participado, cuál considera usted que ha sido el tipo de infraestructura que más beneficio le ha traído a la población de la vereda 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTAS DADAS EN Q604)
1. Placa huella en vías 
2. Centros educativos 
3. Centro de salud
4. Sistema de alcantarillado 
5. Provisión de internet 
6. Provisión de energía eléctrica 
7. Provisión de sistemas de riego/drenaje
8. Escenarios deportivos 
9. Centros de acopio
10. Planta de procesamiento 
11. Alcantarillas en vías
12. Puentes
283 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
89. Otro. ¿cuál?
Q606. Quiénes han brindado apoyo a esta organización para la participación en este proyecto de (PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIO SOLO UNA OPCION TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q604, DE LO CONTRARIO TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q605): (ENC: LEA) (RM) 
1. 
Gobierno 
Nacional 
2. 
Gobierno 
local 
3. Otras 
organizaciones 
comunitarias 
4. Sector 
privado
5. Programa 
Territorios de 
Oportunidad 
6.Cooperación 
internacional
7.(PROG: SI EN 203.1 
RESPONDIO 2, MOSTRAR 
“Otra Junta de Acción Comunal; 
DE LO CONTRARIO, 
MOSTRAR “Junta de Acción 
Comunal”
89. Otro 
¿Cuál? 
___
90. Ninguno 
(PROG: 
EXCLUYENTE)
Q607. Sobre el tipo de infraestructura (PROG: SI EN Q604 RESPONDIO SOLO UNA OPCION TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q604, DE LO CONTRARIO TRAER RESPUESTA 
DE Q605) responda qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones .. (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1.La obra de infraestructura respondió a las necesidades MÁS IMPORTANTES de esta organización 1 2 3 4 5
2. La obra de infraestructura respondió a las necesidades MÁS IMPORTANTES de la población de la 
vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 
999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208)
1 2 3 4 5
3. La población de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN 
Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) participó en el diseño y ejecución de 
la obra
1 2 3 4 5
4. Esta obra se realizó dentro de los tiempos planeados y con los recursos asignados inicialmente 1 2 3 4 5
5. Esta obra contribuyó a la legitimidad entre los miembros de la organización 1 2 3 4 5
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 284
6. Esta obra contribuyó a la legitimidad de la organización frente a organizaciones o entidades 
privadas y públicas
1 2 3 4 5
VI.2. Conectividad
Q608. ¿Desde su vivienda principal en (PROG: RESPUESTA DE Q105.2) usualmente, qué medio o medios de transporte usa 
cuando usted se desplaza a (PROG: FRASES DE Q608)? (ENC: ESPONTÁNEA) (RU):
Q609. Cuánto 
tiempo gasta para 
llegar a (PROG: 
FRASES DE Q608)? 
(ENC: PEDIR 
RESPUESTA EN 
HORAS Y 
MINUTOS, LEER 
LAS FRASES)
Q610. Cuánto 
dinero (en 
pesos 
colombianos) 
gasta para 
llegar a 
(PROG: 
FRASES DE 
Q608) (solo 
ida)? (ENC: 
PEDIR 
RESPUESTA 
EN PESOS)
FRASES
Carro / 
Jeep Biciclet
a
Bus o 
Buseta 
Camión Moto
Lancha/Canoa/
Chalupa
Caballo/Mula/
Burro A pie En avión
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
285 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
1. Donde 
el vecino 
más 
cercano
1
(PROG: 
Pase a 
Q609.1
)
2
(PROG: 
Pase a 
Q609.1
)
3
(PROG: 
Pase a 
Q609.1
)
4
(PROG: 
Pase a 
Q609.1
)
5
(PROG: 
Pase a 
Q609.1
)
6
(PROG: Pase a 
Q609.1)
7
(PROG: Pase 
a Q609.1)
8
(PROG: Pase 
a Q609.1)
9
(PROG: 
Pase a 
Q609.1)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
(PROG: Pase a 
Q610.1)
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
(PROG: Pase a 
Q608.2)
2. La 
escuela 
más 
cercana
1
(Pase a 
Q609.2
)
2
(Pase a 
Q609.2
)
3
(Pase a 
Q609.2
)
4
(Pase a 
Q609.2
)
5
(Pase a 
Q609.2
)
6
(Pase a 
Q609.2)
7
(Pase a 
Q609.2)
8
(Pase a 
Q609.2)
9
(Pase a 
Q609.2)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 286
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
(Pase a Q610.2)
(Pase a 
Q608.3)
3. Puesto 
de salud
más 
cercano
1
(Pase a 
Q609.3
)
2
(Pase a 
Q609.3
)
3
(Pase a 
Q609.3
)
4
(Pase a 
Q609.3
)
5
(Pase a 
Q609.3
)
6
(Pase a 
Q609.3)
7
(Pase a 
Q609.3)
8
(Pase a 
Q609.3)
9
(Pase a 
Q609.3)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
(Pase a Q610.3)
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
(Pase a 
Q608.4)
4. La 
estación 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
287 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
de policía 
más 
cercana
(Pase a 
Q609.4
)
(Pase a 
Q609.4
)
(Pase a 
Q609.4
)
(Pase a 
Q609.4
)
(Pase a 
Q609.4
)
(Pase a 
Q609.4)
(Pase a 
Q609.4)
(Pase a 
Q609.4)
(Pase a 
Q609.4)
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
(Pase a Q610.4)
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
(Pase a 
Q608.5)
5. Al 
centro 
poblado o 
caserío 
más 
cercano
1
(Pase a 
Q609.5
)
2
(Pase a 
Q609.5
)
3
Pase a 
Q609.5
)
4
Pase a 
Q609.5
)
5
Pase a 
Q609.5
)
6
Pase a Q609.5)
7
Pase a 
Q609.5)
8
Pase a 
Q609.5)
9
Pase a 
Q609.5)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
(Pase a Q 
608.6)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 288
(Pase a Q610.5)
6. La 
alcaldía 
del 
municipio 
donde 
vive
1
(Pase a 
Q609.6
)
2
(Pase a 
Q609.6
)
3
(Pase a 
Q609.6
)
4
(Pase a 
Q609.6
)
5
(Pase a 
Q609.6
)
6
(Pase a 
Q609.6)
7
(Pase a 
Q609.6)
8
(Pase a 
Q609.6)
9
(Pase a 
Q609.6)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
(Pase a Q610.6)
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
(Pase a 
Q608.7)
7. Al sitio 
de trabajo 
o donde 
desarrolla 
su 
actividad 
económic
a principal
1
(Pase a 
Q609.7
)
2
(Pase a 
Q609.7
)
3
(Pase a 
Q609.7
)
4
(Pase a 
Q609.7
)
5
(Pase a 
Q609.7
)
6
(Pase a 
Q609.7)
7
(Pase a 
Q609.7)
8
(Pase a 
Q609.7)
9
(Pase a 
Q609.7)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
144)
b. Minutos__ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
_____PESOS 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 
A 500.000)
(Pase a Q611)
289 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
59, AL MENOS 
UNA OPCION 
DEBE VENIR CON 
NUMERO 
DIFERENTE A “0”)
(Pase a Q610.7)
VI.3. Provisión de bienes públicos
Q611. En la actualidad, ¿en la vereda (PROG: 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI 
RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 
999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) tienen 
acceso a (PROG: FRASES DE Q611)? (ENC: 
LEER) (RU)
Q612. En 
promedio, 
cuántas horas al 
día funciona 
(PROG: FRASES 
DE Q611)? 
(ENC: LEER) 
(RU)
Q613. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q613) Desde 
2018, ¿cuál fue el principal cambio que sufrió el 
servicio de (PROG: FRASES DE Q611) en esta 
vereda? (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU)
1. No hubo ningún cambio.
2. Construyeron o instalaron el servicio por primera 
vez
3. Ampliaron el servicio existente
4. Rehabilitaron o mejoraron el servicio existente
5. Se le realizó mantenimiento básico al servicio 
existente
Q614. De quiénes han recibido recursos (en $ o 
FRASES DE Q611) (ENC: LEA) (RM)
1. Gobierno Nacional 
2. Gobierno local 
3. Otras organizaciones comunitarias 
4. Sector privado
5. Programa Territorios de Oportunidad 
6. Cooperación Internacional
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGAN
8. (PROG: SI EN 203.1 RESPONDIO 2, MOSTRA 
Comunal; DE LO CONTRARIO, MOSTRAR “Ju 
89. Otro ¿Cuál?___
FRASES Sí No NS/NR
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 290
RANGO DE 0 A 
24)
1. Energía 
eléctrica
1
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q612.
1)
2
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611.
2)
93
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611.
2)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase Q613.1)
1
(PROG: 
Pase 
Q611.2)
2
(PROG
: Pase 
Q614.1
)
3
(PROG
: Pase 
Q614.1
)
4
(PROG
: Pase 
Q614.1
)
5
(PROG
: Pase 
Q614.1
)
1
(PROG
: Pase 
Q611.2
)
2
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
3
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
4
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
5
(PR
OG
: 
Pas
e 
Q6
11.
2)
6
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.2)
2. Acueducto
1
(Pase 
Q612.
2)
2
(Pase 
Q611.
3)
93
(Pase 
Q611.
3)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase Q613.2)
1
(Pase 
Q611.3)
2
(Pase 
Q614.2
)
3
(Pase 
Q614.2
)
4
(Pase 
Q614.2
)
5
(Pase 
Q614.2
)
1
(PROG
: Pase 
Q611.3
)
2
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
3
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
4
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
5
(PR
OG
: 
Pas
e 
Q6
11.
3)
6
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.3)
3. Internet
1
(Pase 
Q612.
3)
2
(Pase 
Q611.
4)
93
(Pase 
Q611.
4)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase Q613.3)
1
(Pase 
Q611.4)
2
(Pase 
Q614.3
)
3
(Pase 
Q614.3
)
4
(Pase 
Q614.3
)
5
(Pase 
Q614.3
)
1
(PROG
: Pase 
Q611.4
)
2
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.4)
3
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.4)
4
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.4)
5
(PR
OG
: 
Pas
e 
Q6
11.
4)
6
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q611
.4)
291 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
4. 
Alcantarillado
1.
(Pase 
Q612.
4)
2
(Pase 
Q615)
93.
(Pase 
Q615)
a. Horas __ 
(PROG: 
NUMERICO, 
RANGO DE 0 A 
24)
(Pase Q613.4)
1
(PROG: SI 
EN 
ALGUNA 
DE LAS 
PREGUNT
AS Q613.1 
Ó Q613.2 
RESPONDI
Ó UNA 
OPCIÓN 
DIFERENT
E A COD 
1 PASE A 
Q615
DE LO 
CONTRA
RIO PASE 
A Q616)
2
(Pase 
Q614.4
)
3
(Pase 
Q614.4
)
4
(Pase 
Q614.4
)
5
(Pase 
Q614.4
)
1
(PROG
: Pase 
Q615)
2
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q615
)
3
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q615
)
4
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q615
)
5
(PR
OG
: 
Pas
e 
Q6
15)
6
(PRO
G: 
Pase 
Q615
)
(PROG: SI EN ALGUNA DE LAS OPCIONES DE Q613 RESPONDIÓ COD DIFERENTE A 1 MUESTRE Q615.1 DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q616)
Q615.1 De las obras realizadas en los servicios públicos, cuál considera usted que ha sido la que más beneficio le ha traído a la población de la vereda (PROG: TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER LAS OPCIONES DE 611 DONDE EN LA 613 LA RESPUESTA COD DIFERENTE A 1)
Q615.2 Cuál considera usted que es el principal beneficio, que la obra en (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA a 615.1) le trajo beneficios a la población de esta vereda?, (ENC: LEER,
SELECCIONE LAS OPCIONES QUE EL ENCUESTADO INDIQUE) (RU)
1. Mejor calidad del servicio 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 292
2. Más personas acceden al servicio
3. Mayor confianza entre las personas de la comunidad 
4. Mejor calidad de vida 
5. Más trabajo conjunto 
6. Ninguno
89. Otro ¿Cuál? 
VI.4. Dotación de infraestructura pública 
Q616. En la actualidad, ¿en el municipio 
(PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE 
Q207A.2) tienen acceso a (PROG: 
LUGARES DE Q616)? (ENC: LEER) (RU)
Q616A. En 
qué vereda se 
encuentra 
(PROG: 
LUGARES DE 
Q616) al que 
accede 
usualmente 
(ENC: 
ESPONTÁNE
A) (RU)
(PROG: 
TRAER LISTA 
DESPLEGABL
E DE 
Q617. Cómo 
califica este 
servicio de 
(PROG: 
LUGARES DE 
Q616) (ENC: 
LEER) (RU) 
1. Muy bueno
2. Bueno
3 Regular (ni 
buena ni mala)
4. Malo
Q618. (ENC: 
ENTREGUE TARJETA 
Q618) Desde 2018, ¿cuál 
fue el principal cambio 
que sufrió el acceso a 
(PROG: LUGARES DE 
Q616)? (ENC: LEA SI ES 
NECESARIO) (RU)
1. No hubo ningún 
cambio.
2. Construyeron o 
instalaron el servicio por 
primera vez
Q619. De quiénes han recibido 
recursos (en $ o trabajo) para 
(PROG: LUGARES DE Q616)? (ENC: 
LEA) (RM)
1. Gobierno Nacional 
2. Gobierno local 
3. Otras organizaciones comunitarias 
4. Sector privado
5. Programa Territorios de 
Oportunidad 
Q620. Puesto que 
en su vereda no 
cuentan con 
(PROG: 
LUGARES DE 
Q616), indique la 
vereda más 
cercana en el cual 
se puede acceder 
a este servicio 
(ENC: 
ESPONTÁNEA) 
(RU)
(PROG: TRAER 
LISTA 
293 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
VEREDAS DE 
LA 
RESPUESTA 
DE 207A.2)
89. otra Cual?
___
5. Muy malo 3. Ampliaron el servicio
existente
4. Rehabilitaron o
mejoraron el servicio
existente
5. Se le realizó
mantenimiento básico al
servicio existente
6. Cooperación Internacional
7. (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC
NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
8. (PROG: SI EN 203.1 RESPONDIO
2, MOSTRAR “Otra Junta de Acción
Comunal; DE LO CONTRARIO,
MOSTRAR “Junta de Acción
Comunal”)
89. Otro ¿Cuál? _____
DESPLEGABLE 
DE VEREDAS, 
PONER 
BUSCARDOR 
PARA QUE SEA 
MAS FACIL LA 
BUSQUEDA)
89. otra Cual?
___
LUGARES
Sí No
NS/N
R 
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
1. Parques
Biosaludab
les
1. 
(Pase 
Q616A.
1)
2 
(Pase 
Q620.
1)
99 
(Pase 
Q616.
2)
Pase Q617.1)
(Pase Q618.1)
1 
(Pase 
Q616.1)
2 3 4 5
(Pase 
Q619.1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
(Pase Q616.2)
((Pase Q616.2)
2. Centros
educativos
1 (Pase 
Q616A.
2)
2 
(Pase 
Q620.
2)
99 
(Pase 
Q616.
3)
(Pase Q617.2)
1 2 3 4 5
(Pase Q618.2)
1 
(Pase 
Q616.3)
2 3 4 5 
(Pase 
Q619.2)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
(Pase Q616.3)
((Pase Q616.3)
3. Centros
de salud u
hospital
1 (Pase 
Q616A.
3)
2 
(Pase 
Q620.
3)
99 
(Pase 
Q616.
4)
(Pase Q617.3)
1 2 3 4 5
(Pase Q618.3)
1 
(Pase 
Q616.4)
2 3 4 5 
(Pase 
Q619.3)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
(Pase Q616.4)
(Pase Q616.4)
4. Plaza de
Mercado
o
1 (Pase 
Q616A.
4)
2 
(Pase 
99 
(Pase 
(Pase Q617.4)
1 2 3 4 5
1 
2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
(Pase Q616.5)
(Pase Q616.5)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 294
mercado 
mayoritari
o
Q620.
4)
Q616.
5)
(Pase Q618.4) (Pase 
Q616.5)
(Pase 
Q619.4)
5. Centro 
cultural o 
biblioteca
1 (Pase 
Q616A.
5)
2 
(Pase 
Q620.
5)
99 
(Pase 
Q701)
(Pase Q617.5)
1 2 3 4 5
(Pase Q618.5)
1.
(Si en 
alguna de 
las 
preguntas 
Q616.1-
Q616.5 
respondió 
en alguna 
opción 
cód. 
diferente 
a 1 pase a 
Q621
De lo 
contrario 
pase a 
Q701)
2 3 4 5 
(Pase 
Q619.5)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 89
(Pase Q621)
(Pase Q701)
(PROG: SI EN ALGUNA DE LAS OPCIONES DE Q618 RESPONDIÓ COD DIFERENTE A 1 MUESTRE Q621.1 DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q701)
Q621.1 De las obras en infraestructura que se han realizado desde 2018, cuál considera usted que ha sido el que más beneficio le ha traído a la población (PROG: TRAER 
RESPUESTA DE Q207A.2) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
(PROG: TRAER LAS OPCIONES DE Q618 EN DONDE LA RESPUESTA FUE DIFERENTE A COD 1)
295 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
LUGARES
1. Parques biosaludables
2. Centros educativos
3. Centros de salud u hospital
4. Plaza de Mercado o mercado mayoritario
5. Centro cultural o biblioteca
Q621.2 Cuál considera usted que es el principal beneficio, que la obra en (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA a Q621.1) le trajo beneficios a la población de esta vereda? (ENC: 
LEER, SELECCIONE LAS OPCIONES QUE EL ENCUESTADO INDIQUE) (RM)
1. Mejor calidad del funcionamiento
2. Más personas acceden 
3. Mayor confianza entre las personas de la comunidad 
4. Mejor calidad de vida 
5. Más trabajo conjunto 
6. Ninguno
89. Otro ¿Cuál? 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 296
VII. DIÁLOGOS MULTINIVEL 
VI.1. Influencia de las organizaciones comunitarias
(PROG: SI Q205==4 MUESTRE) Anteriormente, usted me contó que esta organización ha participado en Actividades de Territorios de Oportunidad relacionadas con (PROG: INSERTE RESPUESTA Q205.4 
SI EN Q205=4)
Q701. Usted considera que los miembros de esta organización lo reconocen como líder: (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
Q702. Desde 2018, ¿Como miembro de esta organización ha participado en espacios o instancias de interlocución/debate/discusión sobre el desarrollo de la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 
PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) o de su municipio? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Sí 2. No
(PROG: SI EN Q702 RESPONDIÓ COD 1 MUESTRE Q703, DE LO CONTRARIO, PASE A Q707)
Q703. ¿En cuál(es) de los siguientes espacio(s) o instancias de participación ciudadana relacionados con el desarrollo territorial de municipio (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207A.2) y/o la vereda (PROG: 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208)? ha participado como representante de esta organización? (ENC: LEER) (RM)
1. Consejo Municipal de Desarrollo Rural (CMDR)
2. Formulación del plan de desarrollo municipal 2020-2023
3. Mesas sectoriales de cadenas productivas
4. Espacios Territoriales de Evaluación del programa Territorios de Oportunidad (espacio donde se presentan los proyectos de las organizaciones)
5. Reuniones de diagnóstico de necesidades y estructuración de actividades con Territorios de Oportunidad 
297 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
89. Otros espacios o instancias. ¿Cuál?
(PROG: SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q704.1, SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q704.2)
Q704.1 Usualmente, con qué frecuencia usted participa como representante de esta organización en (PROG: RESPUESTAS EN Q703 QUE ELIGIO ENTRE COD 1,2 3 o 89) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Cada vez que se llevan a cabo
2. Frecuentemente, pero no siempre que se lleva a cabo 
3. Rara vez 
(PROG: SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q704.2)
Q704.2 Usualmente, con qué frecuencia usted participa como representante de esta organización en (PROG: RESPUESTAS EN Q703 QUE ELIGIO ENTRE COD 4 o 5) (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Cada vez que se llevan a cabo
2. Frecuentemente, pero no siempre que se lleva a cabo 
3. Rara vez 
(PROG: SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q705.1, SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q705.2)
Q705.1. Cómo califica la respuesta a las demandas, peticiones o sugerencias de esta organización que se han dado en el marco de la participación en (PROG: RESPUESTAS EN Q703 QUE ELIGIO ENTRE 
COD 1,2 3 o 89): (ENC: LEER) (RU)
1. Muy Buena 2. Buena 3 Regular (ni buena ni mala) 3. Mala 4. Muy mala
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 298
(PROG: EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q705.2)
Q705. 2. Cómo califica la respuesta a las demandas, peticiones o sugerencias de esta organización que se han dado en el marco de la participación en (PROG: RESPUESTAS EN Q703 QUE ELIGIO ENTRE 
COD 4 o 5): (ENC: LEER) (RU)
1. Muy Buena 2. Buena 3 Regular (ni buena ni mala) 3. Mala 4. Muy mala
(PROG: SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 1,2, 3 o 89, PASE A Q706.1, SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q706.2)
Q706.1 En el marco de estos espacios o instancias, CON QUIÉNES ha trabajado en (PROG: RESPUESTAS EN Q703 QUE ELIGIO ENTRE COD 1,2 3 o 89 (ENC: LEER) (RM)?
1. Organización(es) o empresa(s) privada(s) 
2. Entidad(es) pública(s)
3. Sector académico (universidades o centros de investigación) 
4. Organización (es) de base comunitaria
5. Agencias de cooperación 
90. Ninguno
89.Otro. ¿Cuál?
(PROG: SI EN Q703 RESPONDIÓ COD 4 o 5, PASE A Q706.2)
Q706.2 En el marco de estos espacios o instancias, CON QUIÉNES ha trabajado en (PROG: RESPUESTAS EN Q703 QUE ELIGIO ENTRE COD 4 o 5 (ENC: LEER) (RM)?
1. Organización(es) o empresa(s) privada(s) 
299 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
2. Entidad(es) pública(s)
3. Sector académico (universidades o centros de investigación) 
4. Organización (es) de base comunitaria
5. Agencias de cooperación 
90. Ninguno
89.Otro. ¿Cuál?
Q707. Qué tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones sobre los cambios que ha sufrido esta organización desde 2018: (ENC: LEER) (RU)
Muy en desacuerdo 2 3 4 Muy de acuerdo
1. En espacios fuera de la organización, las personas que la representan siempre han sido los 
mismas 
1 2 3 4 5
2. Si hoy fuera designado por esta organización como su representante en un espacio de discusión 
con un aliado externo, se sentiría confiado en realizar dicha tarea. 
1 2 3 4 5
3. Desde 2018, los miembros de esta organización realizan más alianzas con otras organizaciones 
privadas o públicas
1 2 3 4 5
VII.2. Confianza inter e intra 
Q708. ¿Qué tanto confía usted en (ENC: LEER) (RU)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 300
Nada Poco Algo Mucho No aplica
1. Los dirigentes de esta organización 1 2 3 4 94
2. Las empresas privadas de la región 1 2 3 4 94
3. Las entidades públicas del gobierno local (alcaldía y gobernación) 1 2 3 4 94
4. El sector académico (universidades o centros de investigación) 1 2 3 4 94
5. Otras organizaciones comunitarias de la región 1 2 3 4 94
6. Agencias de cooperación 1 2 3 4 94
Final
Q801. Diga en UNA o en máximo DOS palabras ¿cuál es el principal asunto o necesidad que considera no ha sido resuelto y que es una prioridad para el desarrollo socioeconómico de la vereda (PROG: 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208)? _____________ (PROG: ABIERTA)
CAPÍTULO III. CONTEXTO TERRITORIAL
III.I. Percepción de seguridad 
(ENC: LEA) Vamos a conversar sobre su opinión acerca de la seguridad y el orden público en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, 
TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208)
Q301. Cómo considera usted la situación actual de seguridad en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) 
(ENC: LEA) (RU)
301 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. Muy Buena 2. Buena 3 Regular (ni buena 
ni mala)
3. Mala 4. Muy mala
Q302. Cuál es el PRINCIPAL tema o asunto que asocian a su (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q301) percepción de la seguridad (ENC: LEA) (RU):
1. Presencia de la 
Fuerza Pública
2. Presencia de Grupos Armados al 
Margen de la Ley
3. Relación entre miembros de la 
comunidad 
89. Otra. ¿Cuál?
Q303. Considera que la situación de seguridad en esta vereda desde 2018 (ENC: LEA) (RU)
1. Ha mejorado 2. Se mantiene igual de bien 3. Se mantiene igual de mal 4. Ha empeorado
Q304. ¿Ha sido víctima de algún acto de delincuencia en los últimos 12 meses en esta vereda? (ENC: LEA) (RM):
1. Robo y/o Hurto
2. Agresión
3. Fraude
4. Chantaje y/o Extorsión
5. Amenazas
89. Otro ¿Cuál? ___
7. No ha sido víctima (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 302
Q305. Actualmente, ¿De los siguientes problemas seleccione el o los problemas más graves asociados con la inseguridad que están enfrentando en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO SI 
RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) ? (ENC: LEA TODAS LAS OPCIONES, SE ACEPTAN MINIMO 1 RESPUESTA, MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) (RM) (PROG: 
ACEPTAR MAXIMO 3 RESPUESTAS) 
1. Homicidios
2. Grupos Armados Ilegales
3. Minas antipersonales
4. Desplazamiento
5. Secuestro
6. Extorsiones
7. Inseguridad ciudadana (robos, atracos, etc.)
8. Reclutamiento forzado
9. Violencia Sexual
10. Narcotráfico
89. Otro. ¿Cuál?
90. No hay problemas graves de inseguridad (PROG: EXCLUYENTE)
III.2. Percepción sobre impactos de la emergencia sanitaria por COVID-19
(ENC: LEA) Ahora vamos a hablar de los efectos de la emergencia o crisis ocasionada por el COVID-19 
303 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
Q306. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q306) Cuál ha sido la principal consecuencia negativa que ha generado el COVID-19 sobre la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN) 
(ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU):
1. Menos capacidad de trabajo de los miembros 
2. Dificultó la comunicación o la frecuencia de reuniones internas
3. Dificultó trabajar con otras organizaciones o entidades
4. Dificultó el trabajo con el programa de Territorios de Oportunidad 
5. Menos ingresos de esta organización 
6. Menos asociados o miembros 
90. Ninguno 
89. Otro ¿Cuál?
Q306.1. (ENC: ENTREGUE TARJETA Q306.1) Cuál ha sido la principal consecuencia positiva que ha generado el COVID-19 sobre la organización (PROG: TRAER DE LLCC NOMBRE_ORGANIZACIÓN)
… (ENC: LEA SI ES NECESARIO) (RU):
1. Más capacidad de trabajo de los miembros 
2. Mejoró comunicación o la frecuencia de reuniones internas
3. Mejoró trabajar con otras organizaciones o entidades
4. Mejoro el trabajo con el programa de Territorios de Oportunidad 
5. Aumento ingresos de esta organización 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 304
6. Más asociados o miembros 
90. Ninguno 
89. Otro ¿Cuál? 
(ENC: LEA) Muchas gracias por su tiempo, solo para finalizar le queremos hacer unas preguntas sobre la situación de su vereda
Q802. Actualmente, ¿en la vereda (PROG: TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q207 PERO 
SI RESPONDIO EN Q207 COD 89 Ó 998 Ó 999, TRAER RESPUESTA DE Q208) 
hay presencia de ...? (ENC: LEER) (RU) Q803. Desde 2018, usted considera que… (ENC: LEER) (RU)
Sí No NS/NR Ha disminuido Se han mantenido igual 
Ha 
aumentado NS/NR
1. Cultivos ilícitos
1 
(Pase Q803.1)
2 
(Pase Q802.1)
93
(Pase Q802.2)
1 
(Pase Q802.2)
2 
(Pase Q802.2)
3 
(Pase 
Q802.2)
93
(Pase Q802.2)
2. Minería ilegal
1 
(Pase Q803.2)
2 
(Pase Q802.2)
93
(Pase Q802.3)
1 
(Pase Q802.3)
2 
(Pase Q802.3)
3 
(Pase 
Q802.3)
93
(Pase Q802.3)
3. Grupos al margen de la 
Ley
1 
(Pase Q803.3)
2 
(Pase Q804)
93
(Pase Q804)
1 
(Pase Q804)
2 
(Pase Q804)
3 
(Pase Q804)
93
(Pase Q804)
Q804. Que tan de acuerdo está con las siguientes afirmaciones (ENC: LEER) (RU)
Totalmente de 
acuerdo
De 
acuerdo
En 
desacuerdo
Totalmente en 
desacuerdo
305 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
1. La coca, amapola, marihuana no debería ser cultivada porque es ilegal. 1 2 3 4
2. La producción de coca (amapola, marihuana) afecta negativamente a las familias 
cultivadoras y a la comunidad 
1 2 3 4
3. Mi familia y amigos piensan que cultivar coca es malo. 1 2 3 4
5. En mi entorno, da más beneficios dedicarse a actividades ilícitas que actividades legales. 1 2 3 4
6. Portar armas es normal en mi entorno 1 2 3 4
8. Pagar sobornos o tajadas es bien visto en mi entorno 1 2 3 4
Por último, permítame recordarle que la información que usted nos ha entregado será tratada de manera confidencial, sin embargo, le agradeceríamos que usted autorizara 
entregar la información que usted nos ha dado, en cuyo caso necesitaría su autorización declarada.
P.01. ¿Autoriza la entrega de sus datos de contacto? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Si
No
P.02. ¿Autoriza la entrega de sus respuestas? (ENC: LEA) (RU)
Si
No
¡MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU COLABORACIÓN!
INC1. ENCUESTADOR: POR FAVOR REGISTRE ABAJO TODAS LAS INCIDENCIAS DURANTE EL DESARROLLO DE LA ENCUESTA (PROG: ABIERTA)
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 306
ANNEX VI: DATA SOURCES
This evaluation used four sources of information: i) surveys of directors and members of CBOs, ii) 
interviews and group activities, iii) CDLO documentation and databases, and iv) secondary sources. This 
annex describes relevant elements regarding each of them.
SURVEYS OF DIRECTORS AND MEMBERS OF CBOS
Table 27 shows the main characteristics of the sample design used for the application of the two surveys 
conducted, for which we define two different universes: 
• Survey of directors: the participating local community-based organizations, within the regions of 
interest.
• Survey of members: the grassroots members of these organizations, over 18 years of age.
TABLE 27. MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE DESIGN
DIRECTORS MEMBERS
Expected sample size
Sample size obtained
425 surveys 
309 surveys – Loss of 27.3 percent vs. 
intended sample size
1,280 surveys
1,090 surveys – Loss of 14.8 percent vs. intended 
sample size.
Population universe Participating local CBOs within the 
regions of interest
Core members of participating local CBOs within the 
regions of interest, 18 years of age and older.
Sample frame Census of organizations submitted by 
CDLOs and members of those 
organizations with contact information. 
Non-probabilistic sampling.
Sample obtained through referrals or incomplete lists. 
Contacts of members and directors were obtained 
through the partnership between Ipsos, the 
implementing partner and the territorial liaison.
Validation/supervision 
methods
Face-to-face supervision of 10 percent of each surveyor's interviews; audio verification of 5 
percent of total interviews and an additional 5 percent verification by re-contacting respondents 
by telephone.
SOURCE: IPSOS
The beneficiary CBO universe was obtained based on the sample frame delivered by the implementing 
partner as of April 12, 2021, which contained 450 CBOs. After being purged during the field process 
(due to the presence of organizations that were repeated or organizations that did not belong to the 
universe of interest), as shown in Table 28. It is noted that the 25 CBOs that are not considered in the 
sampling frame are those that are repeated and those that refer to minors, or that do not know CDLO 
or have not participated in any CDLO activity.
TABLE 28. PROCESS FOR DEFINING THE CBO SAMPLE UNIVERSE
TOTAL CBOS FROM THE BASE DELIVERED BY CDLO (APRIL 12) 450 PERCENTAGE
Effective of CBOs directors (at least one survey was conducted) 348 81.9%
307 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 28. PROCESS FOR DEFINING THE CBO SAMPLE UNIVERSE
TOTAL CBOS FROM THE BASE DELIVERED BY CDLO (APRIL 12) 450 PERCENTAGE
Pilot testing of directors who are other contacts (did not manage to conduct surveys 
because they participated in the pilot and there were no additional contacts)
8 1.9%
Rejection by directors 11 2.6%
No contact (unable to communicate with any person and unable to get information from 
the Territories of Opportunity territorial liaison)
58 13.6%
Repeated CBO 7 
Does not belong to the universe (does not have any contact to manage, minor, do not 
know CDLO or do not participate in any activity, not integrated 
18
Total CBOs sample frame after filtering CBOs information 425 94.5%
SOURCE: IPSOS
The CBOs benefiting from CDLO are located in 38 municipalities in nine departments and participate in 
four components as shown in Tables 29 and 30. 
TABLE 29. UNIVERSE BY GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF 
CBOS
NUMBER OF MEMBERS REPORTED 
BY CDLO
Central Caquetá Belén de los Andaquíes 23 949
La Montañita 18 835
Milán 16 508
San José del Fragua 36 1,168
Solano 14 742
Total, Caquetá 107 4.202
Guaviare Calamar 3 89
El retorno 10 486
Miraflores 1 114
San José del Guaviare 29 1,156
Total, Guaviare 43 1,845
Meta La Macarena 9 230
Puerto Rico 6 261
Vista Hermosa 23 1,469
Total, Meta 38 1,960
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 308
TABLE 29. UNIVERSE BY GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF 
CBOS
NUMBER OF MEMBERS REPORTED 
BY CDLO
Putumayo Leguizamo 1 12
Orito 22 1.643
Puerto Asís 29 2.060
Valle del Guamuez 10 155
Villa garzón 4 58
Total, Putumayo 66 3,928
Total, Central 254 11,935
North Antioquia Briceño 10 830
Cáceres 4 236
Taraza 6 467
Valdivia 6 159
Total, Antioquia 26 1,692
Córdoba Montelíbano 8 212
Puerto Libertador 15 1243
Tierralta 10 417
Total, Córdoba 33 1,872
Norte de Santander Convención 1 55
El Carmen 3 109
El Tarra 2 176
Sardinata 2 90
Teorama 1 26
Total, Norte de Santander 9 456
Total, North 68 4,020
South Cauca Argelia 8 573
El tambo 49 1,637
Guapi 9 239
López 1 15
309 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 29. UNIVERSE BY GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF 
CBOS
NUMBER OF MEMBERS REPORTED 
BY CDLO
Timbiquí 4 82
Total, Cauca 71 2,546
Nariño Cumbitara 6 1.509
Policarpa 5 321
Samaniego 19 734
Tumaco 2 7 
Total, Nariño 32 2,571
Total, South 103 5,117
Total, General 425 21,072
SOURCE: IPSOS
TABLE 30. OBC CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMPONENTS
CDLO COMPONENTS CBOS PERCENTAGE
Acceleration of socio-economic development 193 45.4%
Development of multilevel dialogue mechanisms 29 6.8 %
Infrastructure and utilities improvement 143 33.6 %
Strengthening of community organizations 60 14.1 %
Total, CBOs 425 100%
SOURCE: IPSOS
The CBOs have different natures, most of them are Community Action Boards (Juntas de Acción 
Comunal, JAC, as its acronym in Spanish), as shown in Table 31. For evaluation purposes they were 
consolidated into three groups: (q) producers and merchants; (2) CABs; and (3) others. 
TABLE 31. UNIVERSE BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
TYPE FOR SAMPLING TYPE OF ORGANIZATION 1 NUMBER OF CBOS
Producers/merchants Producer association 103
Worker cooperative or producers' guild 5 
Community-based organization 1 
Total, Producer/merchants 109
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 310
TABLE 31. UNIVERSE BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
TYPE FOR SAMPLING TYPE OF ORGANIZATION 1 NUMBER OF CBOS
CABs Community action board 199
Other Private enterprise 1
Participation mechanisms promoted by the government 2
Community organization 52
Cultural or sports organization 38
Environmental conservation organization 7
Educational organization (parents' associations, etc.) 1
Ethnic organization 7
Other 9
Total, Other 117
TOTAL 425
SOURCE: IPSOS
SURVEY OF DIRECTORS
In order to obtain the most representative results and considering the number and geographic location 
of the CBOs, we decided to conduct a census, that is, to survey all 425 beneficiary CBOs. The survey of 
directors covered 73 percent of the CBOs, equivalent to 309 effective surveys in 37 municipalities in 9 
departments. The surveys that could not be carried out were due to impossibility of contact and refusal 
to participate in the survey. Table 32 shows the number of organizations contacted with an effective 
survey by municipality.
TABLE 32. SAMPLE OBTAINED BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Central Caquetá Belén de los Andaquíes 22
La Montañita 11
Milán 15
San José del Fragua 21
Solano 8 
Total, Caquetá 77
Guaviare Calamar 2 
El retorno 8 
311 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 32. SAMPLE OBTAINED BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Miraflores 1 
San José del Guaviare 18
Total, Guaviare 29
Meta La Macarena 7 
Puerto Rico 5 
Vista Hermosa 17
Total, Meta 29
Putumayo Leguizamo 1 
Orito 15
Puerto Asís 25
Valle del Guamuez 8 
Villa garzón 2 
Total, Putumayo 51
Total, Central 186
North Antioquia Briceño 6 
Cáceres 4 
Taraza 4 
Valdivia 3 
Total, Antioquia 17
Córdoba Montelíbano 2 
Puerto Libertador 4 
Tierralta 10
Total, Córdoba 16
Norte de Santander Convención 1 
El Carmen 3 
El Tarra 2 
Sardinata 2 
Teorama 1 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 312
TABLE 32. SAMPLE OBTAINED BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
Total, Norte de Santander 9 
Total, North 42
South Cauca Argelia 7 
El tambo 38
Guapi 7 
López 0 
Timbiquí 4 
Total, Cauca 56
Nariño Cumbitara 6 
Policarpa 4 
Samaniego 13
Tumaco 2 
Total, Nariño 25
Total, South 81
Total, General 309
SOURCE: IPSOS
SURVEY OF MEMBERS
A probabilistic design was not possible for the member survey because there were no lists identifying 
the members of the CBOs and their contact information. 
Therefore, a non-probabilistic design was chosen, where the selection of members was not random. The 
snowball methodology was used to establish the number of members of the CBOs and to identify and 
contact between 3 -=4 members of each CBO who knew CDLO program. The methodology queried 
CBO directors and members for the number of members of the organizations through a question 
included in the director survey: Q206: "at present, how many active members does the organization 
have?”. The organizations contacted in the membership survey report a total of 18,757 active members 
and according to the information from these same organizations in the sample frame it is 16,756, an 
increase of 12 percent. The member survey was conducted to 325 of the 421 CBOs (out of the 425 
there were 4 CBOs that were not included because their members were not aware of CDLO) and a 
coverage of 77 percent of the organizations was achieved. A total of 1,090 CBO members were 
surveyed. Table 33 shows the final results of the member survey application.
313 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 33. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF THE MEMBER SURVEY
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF 
CBOREACHED
NUMBER OF MEMBERS 
REPORTED BY THESE 
BCOS REACHED
NUMBER OF 
MEMBERS 
SURVEYED
Central Caquetá Belén de los Andaquíes 21 649 49
La montañita 12 394 24
Milán 14 524 28
San José del Fragua 27 865 60
Solano 10 837 21
Total, Caquetá 84 3.269 182
Guaviare Calamar 3 73 5 
El retorno 7 304 15
Miraflores 1 114 8 
San José del Guaviare 24 1297 50
Total, Guaviare 35 1,788 78
Meta La Macarena 8 181 27
Puerto Rico 6 298 18
Vista Hermosa 19 1435 84
Total, Meta 33 1,914 129
Putumayo Leguizamo 0 0 0 
Orito 15 785 93
Puerto Asís 27 1.872 138
Valle del Guamuez 8 706 28
Villa garzón 2 68 9 
Total, Putumayo 52 3.431 268
Total, Central 204 10.402 657
North Antioquia Briceño 8 680 25
Cáceres 4 648 18
Taraza 5 1126 19
Valdivia 4 248 13
Total, Antioquia 21 2.702 75
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 314
Given that the selection of members was not random, but by snowballing, also called referrals, or with 
incomplete lists of members, no error margins are calculated since the results may present non-sampling 
TABLE 33. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF THE MEMBER SURVEY
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF 
CBOREACHED
NUMBER OF MEMBERS 
REPORTED BY THESE 
BCOS REACHED
NUMBER OF 
MEMBERS 
SURVEYED
Córdoba Montelíbano 0 0 0 
Puerto Libertador 4 1,304 10
Tierralta 6 231 14
Total, Córdoba 10 1.535 24
Norte de 
Santander 
Convención 1 40 4 
El Carmen 3 171 8 
El Tarra 2 158 9 
Sardinata 2 91 6 
Teorama 1 37 4 
Total, Norte de Santander 9 497 31
Total, North 40 4,737 130
Sur Cauca Argelia 7 175 33
El Tambo 36 1.358 105
Guapi 6 203 21
Lipez 0 0 0 
Timbiquí 4 41 10
Total, Cauca 53 1,777 169
Nariño Cumbitara 6 660 48
Policarpa 4 345 17
Samaniego 16 823 62
Tumaco 2 16 7 
Total, Nariño 28 1,844 134
Total, South 81 3,621 303
Total, General 325 18,757 1.090
SOURCE: IPSOS
315 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
biases that cannot be measured. Moreover, the results are representative for the members surveyed but 
not for the totality of CDLO CBO members. 
CHALLENGES IN THE COLLECTION AND SUMMARY OF FINAL RESULTS
The team that carried out the survey data collection faced challenges in the development of the 
activities. First, there were safety challenges. The municipalities where CDLO is being implemented 
generally have medium and high security risk due to the presence of illegal armed groups and the risks 
increased due to protests that took place in the country between April and July 2021 that triggered a 
transport strike, massive demonstrations, work strike and armed strike in some areas. Secondly, the 
country was in the third peak of COVID 19, which resulted in mobility restrictions. Finally, in some 
cases there was a lack of confidence among people to give information or refer other people due to 
security situations in the territories. These difficulties were more severe in rural areas and in specific 
municipalities of Norte de Santander, Cauca, Meta and Guaviare. Table 34 presents the final results of 
the application of the surveys to directors and members of the CBOs.
TABLE 34. GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF THE SURVEY
REGION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPALITIES SURVEYS TO DIRECTORS MEMBER SURVEYS
Central Caquetá 5 76 182
Guaviare 4 29 78
Meta 3 30 129
Subtotal 12 135 389
North Antioquia 4 17 75
Córdoba 3 16 24
N. Santander 5 9 31
Subtotal 12 42 130
South Cauca 4 56 169
Nariño 4 25 134
Putumayo 5 51 286
Subtotal 13 132 571
TOTAL 37 309 1,090
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 316
INTERVIEWS AND GROUP ACTIVITIES
For the application of the qualitative component instruments, six criteria were defined for the definition 
of the sample: geographic coverage, level of execution, diversity of activities, proximity to the corridors, 
CDLO and private sector investment. This allowed the selection of twelve municipalities for the field 
work, as shown in Table 35.144
TABLE 35. MUNICIPALITIES WHERE QUALITATIVE INSTRUMENTS WERE APPLIED
MUNICIPALITY CORRIDOR
El Tambo (Pilot) Quilcace, - La Gallera
Puerto Libertador Villanueva – Juan José – La Rica
San José del Guaviare Trocha Ganadera
Taraza Taraza – La Caucana – San Miguel
Samaniego Chuguldi
Guapi – Timbiquí Cultural Costa Pacífico
EL Tarra El Tarra
San José del Fragua Piedemonte San José
La Macarena Sierra de la Macarena Tourism
Tumaco Dosquebradas – La Espriella
Valle de Guamuez La Hormiga
SOURCE: EVALUATION GROUP
A total of 131 interviews and group activities were conducted with relevant stakeholders and 
beneficiaries of all activities developed by CDLO. Table 36 presents the distribution of the activities.
TABLE 36. SOURCES OF INFORMATION - QUALITATIVE FIELD WORK
Group activities 30
Social mapping with CBO members 10
Focus group with CBO members 10
Ethnographic tours 10
Interviews 101
CBO traditional economic activities 10
CBO non-traditional economic activities 9 
144 Some interviews of entities' officials that have coverage in the selected municipalities were conducted in the headquarters 
city of their entities.
317 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 36. SOURCES OF INFORMATION - QUALITATIVE FIELD WORK
CBO communication activities 6 
Community Action Boards 10
Commercial partner 9 
Implementers 17
National government official 3 
Decentralized national government official 9 
Territorial government official 13
CDLO National official 3 
CDLO Regional officer 12
Total 131
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM
CDLO DOCUMENTATION AND DATABASES
The evaluation team reviewed the following CDLO information provided by the implementer: 
• Annual and Quarterly reports
• AMELP
• CDLO Work Plans 2018-2020 
• CDLO Baseline
• MEL CDLO Manual
• MEL Indicators Training
• Section C of the Contract 
• Section C of the Contract, updated 
• CDLO-Annual and Quarterly Performance Report 2017-2020 
• CDLO-Databases: Mission and Monitor Systems
o AMEL Indicators
o Beneficiary organizations
o Activities implemented
o Geographic units of implementation (pending)
o Corridors Interventions 
o Activities Report
SECONDARY SOURCES
The work team obtained information from open data and direct requests for information from 
government entities and private organizations as shown in Table 37. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 318
TABLE 37. SECONDARY INFORMATION SOURCES
TOPIC SOURCE
Illicit crops Integrated Illicit Crops Monitoring System – SIMCI
Legal and illegal mining National Mining Agency
Armed conflict Ministry of Defense – National Police
National Individual Registry of Victims 
Human Rights Observatories – Institute for Development and Peace Studies – 
INDEPAZ 
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – UN Human Rights
Crime Ministry of Defense – National Police
Implementation of the peace 
agreement
Integrated Information System for Post – Conflict – SIIPO
Electoral information National Registry of Civil Status
COVID-19 National Institute of Health – INS
Deaths National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences
Context National Administrative Department of Statistics – DANE
National Planning Department – DNP
Municipal Database – CEDE – Universidad de los Andes
CDLO Mission and Monitor Systems
SOURCE: EVALUATION TEAM.
319 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
ANNEX VII: EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of this mid-term performance evaluation is to assess the achievements of Community 
Development and Licit Opportunities Activity (CDLO) interventions, deliverables, and outcomes 
according to the work plan and theory of change and to what extent they are relevant based on the 
current national and local contexts.
In accomplishing this purpose, the evaluation will provide information and analysis on to what extend the 
Activity is advancing in its objectives of “to strengthen the capacity of conflict-affected communities to be 
reliable and effective partners with state and private sector actors in the implementation of comprehensive rural 
social and economic development activities, including the promotion of illegal crops substitution and alternative 
development.” 
The construction of findings and conclusions must use evidence-based information and formal analyses. 
This evaluation is not a performance auditory nor is it intended to be a normative evaluation. The 
evaluation will support USAID/Colombia and the CDLO Implementing Partner (IP) accountability among 
stakeholders. The evaluation also must provide lessons learned and recommendations on capacity and 
changes in behavior toward the Journey to Self-Reliance. Recommendations will contribute to the 
stewardship of the CDLO Activity, the achievement of its expected results, as well as providing input to 
help USAID/Colombia to make programming decisions. The schedule of the evaluation will start and 
develop near the CDLO Activity midpoint period of performance. Its design and methodology must be 
replicable to be the point of departure for future final performance evaluation, and in general, to comply 
with the necessary methodological rigor.
SUMMARY INFORMATION OF THE ACTIVITY
TABLE 38. ACTIVITY SNAPSHOT
Activity Name: Community Development and 
Licit Opportunities (CDLO)
Period of Performance: 23/08/2017 - 22/08/2022
Contract No: AID-514-H-17-002 Contracting Mechanism: Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract.
Total Estimated Cost (TEC): $68,421,779 Contractor: Tetra Tech
Alignment to the USAID/Colombia Country 
Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) 
2014-2018:
DO 3: “Improved Conditions for Inclusive Rural 
Economic Growth”.
Intermediate Results: 
IR 3.2 “Increased public and private investment in 
the rural sector.”
IR 3.3: “More effective producer associations 
benefitting smallholder farmers.”
Sub-Purpose 1: Local community groups and producer 
organizations strengthened
Sub-Purpose 2: Community organizations engaged in the provision 
of public services and improvement and maintenance of 
infrastructure in post-conflict affected regions.
Sub-Purpose 3: A positive and sustainable economic environment 
in post-conflict affected areas enabled.
Sub-Purpose 4: Post-conflict communities actively participate in 
multi-level dialogues for development planning.
Contracting Officer Representative (COR): 
Edgar A. Prieto C.
Evaluation Activity Manager (EAM): 
Omar Lopez
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 320
TABLE 38. ACTIVITY SNAPSHOT
Alternate Contracting Officer 
Representative: 
Ana Lucía Uribe Bernal
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist:
Francisco Mesa Salamanca
BACKGROUND
Evidence suggests that Colombia’s 52-year armed conflict has debilitated rural communities in conflict￾affected regions in a variety of ways. In particular, there has been a negative and significant effect on 
social capital, which has led to a reduction of citizens’ participation in community organizations, 
municipal affairs, and the democratic process in conflict-affected regions.
Armed conflict compromises trust within communities, destroys social networks, and weakens existing 
institutions. Communities in conflict-affected regions lack social structures and norms of trust that 
facilitate coordination and cooperation to achieve common goals and mutual benefits. Therefore, 
building social capital is an essential component in achieving community and economic development in a 
post-conflict scenario. In Colombia’s conflict-affected regions, lack of social capital is as much a 
reflection of the armed conflict as it is the weak presence of the state that struggles to offer essential 
services and legal, economic opportunities. The latter fuels an illicit rural economy, particularly the illegal 
drug trade. These destructive, mutually reinforcing chains of events contribute to conditions that 
perpetuate conflict and reinforce poverty. 
The GOC’s focus on territorial development offers a unique opportunity to promote the re￾establishment of social capital by building trust, fostering citizen participation in local affairs, reducing 
coca production, and promoting community development. Its vision for comprehensive rural reform and 
lays out the mechanisms for this ‘structural transformation of the countryside’, including land access and 
formalization, increased rural economic productivity, provision of infrastructure, food security, and the 
focalization in the regions most affected by the conflict. The GOC focus is addressing the problem of 
drug consumption as a public health issue, illegal crops substitution and alternative development 
promotion, and the fight against drug trafficking, organized crime, and corruption. 
The GOC intends to work hand-in-hand with local communities in the design, execution, and 
monitoring of local, alternative development and illegal crops substitution plans. According to the USG 
calculations, coca production doubled between 2013 and 2015, reaching 2007 levels of 160,000 hectares. 
Approximately, 40 percent of coca is produced in 11 municipalities: Briceño, Taraza, Argelia, San José de 
Guaviare, Tibú, Sardinata, Puerto Asís, Valle de Guamuez, San José de Fragua, Belén de Los Andaquíes, 
and Tumaco. CDLO enables USAID to support GOC efforts to provide alternatives to coca production 
in these and other municipalities.
The CDLO Activity, through its four programmatic components, works to reestablish social capital and 
strengthen community development by building trust between citizens and local governments and 
promoting the active participation of the community in the design, delivery, and monitoring of policies 
and programs of rural and alternative development, including coca reduction. The CDLO intends to 
support and complement similar efforts by the GOC, remarkably rapid response programming to 
321 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
support efforts to respond to development challenges in conflict-affected regions rapidly. Further, it 
focuses on interventions in areas prioritized by the GOC for comprehensive rural development and 
illegal crops substitution.
CDLO supports the implementation of the Peace Accord in the areas of rural development and coca 
reduction, as described herein. Within the scope of CDLO, the Contractor remains flexible to 
implement activities in support of the peace accord as directed by USAID, including engaging with GOC 
entities created to implement the final Peace Accord.
The main objective of CDLO is to strengthen the capacity of conflict-affected communities to be reliable 
and effective partners with state and private sector actors to implement local-level social and economic 
development, including land, rural development, and the reduction of illegal crops production. The 
following sub-objectives are designed to build trust and social capital in local communities and bridge 
them to their local and national governments, thereby making the successful implementation of the 
peace accords more likely. Trust and social capital will be built through engagement and dialogue, service 
provision and infrastructure improvements, and participation of local communities and organizations in 
their socio-economic development needs.
a. Local community groups and producer organizations strengthened,
b. Community organizations engaged in the provision of public services and improvement and 
maintenance of infrastructure in conflict-affected regions,
c. A lively and sustainable economic environment in conflict-affected areas enabled,
d. Conflict-affected communities actively participate in multi-level dialogues for development planning.
THEORY OF CHANGE: “USAID’s theory of change, linking the CDLO objectives with the intended 
outcome, is that if the conflict-affected communities and state actors are strengthened and empowered 
to become reliable partners in implementing activities on land, rural development and alternative 
development, then this will enhance the conditions for inclusive rural economic growth and social 
development, and improve the quality of life and opportunities in former conflict zones, providing a 
better foundation for sustainable and lasting peace. To improve the relationships and interactions 
between the state and community, CDLO will build the greater levels of trust, confidence, and 
legitimacy that communities need to build their social capital to participate more effectively in the public 
sphere and productive activities, and that the local governments need to respond to increasing citizen 
demands that result from greater participation.”
FRAMEWORK: Exhibit 40 below presents the CDLO results framework (RF) and the relationship 
among the Activity goal of “conflict-affected communities are reliable and effective partners to 
implement local-level social and economic development” and the Objectives.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 322
Exhibit 40. The CDLO Results Framework
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS, RISKS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
CDLO addresses two essential goals of USAID and the GOC: providing alternatives to illicit economic 
activities and supporting rural and alternative development initiatives. If Colombia should become 
decertified due to excessive coca or other illicit crop expansion, funds for CDLO could disappear. 
While CDLO does not have adequate funding, by itself, the challenge can be overcome through the 
successful strengthening of its proxies (CBOs, public and private sector actors) to affect change, build 
critical rural infrastructure with outside leveraged funds, and keep open and transparent communication 
channels with communities and other relevant stakeholders including GOC counterparts. Furthermore, 
by providing broad public goods and services, attracting the private sector, increasing productivity and 
sales for local producer associations, and boosting the overall economic conditions throughout targeted 
territories, support to Foreign Terrorist Organizations or other illegal actors in the CDLO regions 
(National Liberation Army [ELN], criminal gangs [BACRIM], FARC, etc.) is diminished. Different critical 
assumptions are:
• Each territory will require a tailored approach to improved rural investment, given the large 
disparities in population levels and existing infrastructure from which to build.
• CDLO’s success and its sustainability, to a considerable extent, depend on the GOC’s ability to 
provide and guarantee security, law enforcement, and the rule of law.
• The target regions are the areas with the lowest infrastructure and with low levels of security, as well 
as low levels of private investment and are therefore prioritized by USAID under Development 
Objective (DO) 3, “Improved Conditions for Inclusive Rural Economic Growth” of USAID’s 
Colombia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).
323 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
• CDLO resources are limited to solve all the needs of rural infrastructure; thus, a priority is to 
generate and promote territorial development dynamics by developing synergies and collaborative 
contributions by all regional stakeholders, i.e., USAID IPs, GOC institutions, private sector actors and 
other relevant organizations or international donors.
• CDLO will have a sequenced intervention that responds to the regional dynamics of cultivation and 
production of illicit drugs, the prioritization made by USAID/Colombia based on defined criteria, 
depending on the strategic importance of regions and security levels. As such, CDLO will be able to 
work permanently in some municipalities/territories and move according to the dynamics noted 
above.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, AND DATA OF THE CDLO ACTIVITY
The following documents contain information regarding the design, implementation, reporting, and 
performance monitoring of the CDLO Activity. The evaluation team must do a careful and detailed 
review and analysis of the documents, information, and data listed below as follows:
Mandatory:
• USAID/Colombia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS)[1].
• Section C and F of the Base Contract and Contract Modifications on this section.
• Program Annual Work plans.
• Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP).
• Performance monitoring data.
• CDLO Baseline Study
• Gender analysis.
As Needed:
• Quarterly Performance Reports.
• Quarterly or Annual Financial Reports. 
• Biweekly Highlights, press materials, and social media posts.
• Other information sources identified by the Activity as relevant for this evaluation.
The CDLO Activity utilizes the USAID/Colombia MONITOR System to report the progress under the 
indicators described in the Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Plan (AMELP). For those 
indicators requiring a baseline, the CDLO Activity had collected the baseline data.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Considering the CDLO Activity purpose stated above, the Contractor will assess the performance of 
the Activity in its main goals and lines of work (Components and Sub-components) to answer the 
following questions. 
Questions will be reviewed and refined in collaboration with USAID before the finalization of the 
evaluation design.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 324
1. Context: How have the socio-economic, institutional, and political contexts in CDLO’s 
intervention areas affected the critical assumptions, performance, and effectiveness of the intended 
activities?
It includes the analysis of the current situation in the regions and intervention corridors of the CDLO 
Activity concerning socio-economic, institutional, and political issues, and its effect on the critical 
assumptions, and the performance and effectiveness of the activities formulated by CDLO.
The main elements in the context are the following:
Coexistence and Public Safety: 
• Pressure from illegal groups
• Social coexistence (criminality, forced displacement)
• Conflict (households affected by the armed conflict, events intrinsic to the conflict)
Illicit Rural Economy: 
• Illicit crops and drugs (illegal crops, drug processing, trade)
• Illegal mining (mines)
Policy and Institutions: 
• Public and cooperation activities available
• Political participation (local, legislative, and presidential elections)
It is vital to ensure that the context’s analysis includes the progress of the principles considered at the 
beginning of the Activity (listed below) and the implications to the Activity of the current pandemic:
• The implementation of the national policy for the substitution of illicit crops (PNIS) and other 
substitution interventions.
• The execution of the peace accords
• General restrictions decreed by the National Government to prevent the spread of COVID-19 
2. Capacity building: What are the capacity-building effects seen in community groups and 
producer organizations benefited by CDLO’s activities?
CDLO operates in regions with a precarious social fabric. In these areas, the communities have lost 
trust at various levels: in organizations, the government, and their economic activities.
CDLO activities promote relations and strengthen local capacities: associativity, cooperativity, collective 
action, increased connectivity, management of public-private partnerships (PPPs), participation, 
leadership, and soft skills, like communication. This process also involves working with communities to 
resolve other issues, like the availability of goods and services or the management of ongoing 
businesses.
In this regard, it is pertinent to assess the results obtained in the processes mentioned above and the 
medium-term effects derived from said actions (inclusive rural development and improvement of the 
quality of life, among others). This evaluation looks to validate the Theory of Change behind the CDLO 
intervention process:
325 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
• Strengthening and empowering conflict-affected communities and state organizations leads to reliable 
partners in the implementation of agricultural and alternative development activities, expediting 
inclusive economic rural development and social progress, and improving the quality of life and 
opportunities in the territory.
• To promote the relationship and interaction between the state and the population, CDLO will 
strengthen social capital in communities so that they can participate in the public sphere and income￾generating activities. Consequently, local governments will respond better to the demands that result 
from a higher level of participation.
3. Economic development: Has CDLO’s intervention been efficient in creating a local 
environment conducive to a licit economy in the targeted regions?
The Activity seeks to promote an environment of opportunities and licit economic growth to raise the 
quality of life and income expectations of strengthened rural communities, with improved services, 
infrastructure, and regional connectivity (earnings, sales, and productive activities). Producing and 
achieving new economic opportunities and alliances in the territories implies innovation processes 
(diversification in the communities’ productive activities) to enable initiatives that allow a real appraisal 
of local, cultural, and environmental assets. The strategy inclusively brings together all members of the 
community, as a dynamic force in these territories.
In this sense, it is relevant to evaluate how efficient and effective is the Activity when planning and 
executing activities. In particular, the idea is to focus on development initiatives meant to promote 
sustainable, legal, economic growth based on expectations expressed by targeted rural communities. 
The evaluation must consider that the process to revitalize the local economy includes the development 
of productive infrastructure, strengthening support services (technical, financial, commercial), and linking 
the private sector with the proper markets.
4. Provision of goods and services: How effective has the Activity’s model to provide goods 
and services been in reaching its results?
CDLO seeks to contribute to the reduction of social and economic inequalities that prevail in the 
selected territories. For this purpose, the Activity aims to increase the supply of social services and 
public goods and looks to implement activities to improve and maintain small infrastructure in the 
regions affected by the conflict. From CDLO’s perspective, such actions are the means, not the end. 
They function as a vehicle to strengthen social capital and allow government institutions to respond 
better and serve the population, facilitating sustainable social and economic dynamics.
For this process, the Activity works with local organizations in charge of overseeing the construction of 
infrastructure. These organizations receive training to improve their technical, administrative, and 
collective capacities; that way, they can guarantee a cost-efficient intervention, enlarge their sense of 
belonging, and improve compliance from the government agencies.
The evaluation must provide information about the effectiveness of the intervention model and its parts:
a. Improve the provision of social services and public goods
b. Involve the communities
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 326
c. Coordinate intervention with the agencies and government offices
It is essential to understand that the provision of the minimum infrastructure and the related social 
services will be the sustenance to enable the appropriation and use of licit, economic opportunities in 
the territories.
5. Multi-level dialogues: How effective have the multilevel dialogue mechanisms been to foster 
community participation and increase the impact in territorial socio-economic development decisions?
CDLO supports communities to create and implement a collective vision of regional development. To 
attain this objective, the Activity strengthens existing fora to discuss ideas; formal and informal venues 
allow communities, public agencies, private companies, and other stakeholders (like international 
cooperation) to exchange views.
For the Activity, promoting a place for continued dialogue at multiple levels is of great importance. It is 
useful to address and respond to petitions and requests from communities, generating an open dialogue 
between stakeholders, and augmenting trust between citizens and the state.
This component is crosscutting and complementary to organizational support; it seeks through its 
actions to promote communication and dissemination mechanisms so that local organizations and actors 
can share experiences, successes, and lessons learned in the implementation of territorial development 
issues. These activities are a driving force for economic development.
The following are examples of the multilevel dialogue mechanisms promoted by CDLO through its 
activities:
• In the municipality of El Tambo (Cauca), CDLO has been strengthening the APACH organization 
(Peach Palm -Bactris Gasipaes- producers) to improve their organizational, business, and commercial 
skills, access markets and increase their income. As part of the strengthening process, the Activity 
identified bottlenecks in the production, particularly regarding a costly pest. In this case, the 
organization assumed the leadership to obtain, through a Technical Team, the necessary support to 
deal with this issue. With effort, the organization has succeeded in getting the Colombian Agricultural 
Institute (ICA), the Governor of Cauca, and the University of Cauca to join forces to implement 
phytosanitary management programs. Additionally, the Colombian Agricultural Institute issued a 
decree declaring a sanitary emergency in the area, which has slowed the spread of the plague. At 
present, the technical team is negotiating with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to 
recognize the Peach Palm production as a Productive Chain, which will grant access to the GOC’s 
policy instruments.
• The implementation exercise of the Decision Model and Notation strategy for the communal tourism 
activity of La Macarena (Meta) has focused on preparing a training plan on the current regulation for 
community-based tourism in protected areas and national parks. In this process, civic organizations 
have coordinated training programs for entities such as Cormacarena, National Natural Parks, and 
the Meta Tourism Institute. This initiative aims to provide the community with basic knowledge 
about regulations so that they can manage their tourism problems or restrictions in a more efficient 
and qualified way. In this process, there is already a positive response from the institutions. The 
327 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
training exercise implementation is pending due to some connectivity restrictions, and the quarantine 
measures decreed to face the COVID19 pandemic.
6. Territorial development: How effective has CDLO’s contribution been to the regional 
development strategy devised and implemented by the government of Colombia through different 
planning initiatives?
This question aims to evaluate the role of CDLO in the design and implementation of public 
policies: development plans, land management plans or schemes, development plans with a local 
perspective (PDETs), action plans for a regional transformation (PATR), municipal and ethnic pacts, 
and rural and alternative development programs. CDLO works considering the local context, the 
institutional allies that operate in the areas, and the private sector partners. These actions look to 
achieve synergies and potentiate the scope of the intervention. These efforts take place within the 
initiatives proposed via the existing public policy planning processes, in such a way as to contribute 
to their development or strengthening.
EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The MEL Activity, in collaboration with USAID, will develop the evaluation methods before fieldwork 
begins. USAID expects de MEL Activity to, at a minimum:
1. Combine and integrate techniques and instruments for quantitative and qualitative analysis (known 
as mixed methods).
2. Specify the quantitative and qualitative methodology, define key variables for measurement, and the 
implications in terms of the proposed information gathering and analysis to answer the Evaluation 
Questions. The proposed methodology should include strategies to assess and reflect likely 
differences between different CDLO regions. 
3. Specify how the proposed methods, sources, and design will allow the MEL Activity to answer each 
of the evaluation questions. 
4. Define the information gathering strategy that includes logistics, preparation, and approach, as well 
as the techniques and instruments for mapping information.
5. Describe in detail the sampling design and statistical sampling strategy for primary information 
gathering that will allow the quantitative analysis. This sampling methodology includes defining the 
target population, defining the reporting unit, calculating the sample size, applying the sampling 
technique (simple, stratified, conglomerates, etc.), defining estimators, the admissible precision and 
confidence, defining domains of interest (strata/income bracket, sex, age groups, etc.), sample 
selection technique, and other statistical concepts that describe both knowledge and expertise of 
the subject and clarity of the method to be applied. Quantitative information is expected to be 
collected in the 45 municipalities of the baseline. It is expected to be representative of CDLO 
beneficiary households at each of the three regions of the Activity: north, south, and center.
6. Specify the primary and secondary sources of information that will be used. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 328
7. Define a strategy for connecting and providing feedback between quantitative and qualitative 
information. 
8. Meet and interview direct beneficiaries, Implementing Partner’s staff, relevant stakeholders, and 
GoC counterparts at appropriate levels; also, interview selected USAID staff and, if applicable, 
experts working in the justice sector.
The MEL Activity will submit the preliminary evaluation design for review by USAID, and this task should 
be included in the evaluation time frame. The evaluation Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) 
will approve the finalized evaluation design.
The MEL Activity needs to develop an evaluation design matrix that will include a data analysis plan for 
each evaluation question (the following table is a suggested way for the MEL Activity to present the 
information, other design matrix designs are allowable).
EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX
TABLE 39. EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX STRUCTURE
QUESTIONS DATA 
SOURCES
DATA 
COLLECTION 
METHODS
DATA 
ANALYSIS 
METHODS
Context: How have the socio-economic, institutional, 
and political contexts in CDLO’s intervention areas 
affected the critical assumptions, performance, and 
effectiveness of the intended activities?
Monitor
Gender 
Strategy 
Activity’s work 
plans
Yearly and 
Quarterly 
reports
Activity’s 
newsletter
AMELP 
Quantitative 
survey
Qualitative 
based data
Qualitative and 
quantitative: 
Document review
Key informant 
interviews (KII)
Focus Groups
Survey
Mixed methods 
analysis
Capacity building: What are the capacity-building effects 
seen in community groups and producer organizations 
benefited by CDLO’s activities?
Economic development: Has CDLO’s intervention been 
efficient in creating a local environment conducive to a 
licit economy in the targeted regions?
Provision of goods and services: How effective has the 
Activity’s model to provide goods and services been in 
reaching its results?
Multi-level dialogues: How effective have the multilevel 
dialogue mechanisms been to foster community 
participation and increase the impact in territorial socio￾economic development decisions?
Territorial development: How effective has CDLO’s 
contribution been to the regional development strategy 
devised and implemented by the government of 
Colombia through different planning initiatives?
329 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
EVALUATION’S WORK PLAN
The entire evaluation work plan should not exceed the four weeks, including the Final Presentation and 
the delivery of the final report, including USAID’s comments. The work plan will include: 
a. Draft schedule and logistical arrangements.
b. Members of the evaluation team delineated by roles and responsibilities.
c. Evaluation’s milestones.
d. Anticipated schedule of evaluation team data collection efforts.
e. Locations and dates for piloting data collection efforts, if applicable.
f. Proposed evaluation methodology, including selection criteria for comparison groups, if 
applicable.
g. Evaluation Report outline (if different from the attached template). 
The MEL Activity will update the evaluation work plan (the lists of interviewees, survey participants, the 
schedule) and submit the updated version to the COR for approval. 
EVALUATION DESIGN
The evaluation design will include:
a. Detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions from the SOW (in their 
finalized form) to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan. 
b. Draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features.
c. List of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or 
sampling plan (must include sampling methodology and methods, including a justification of 
sample size and any applicable calculations).
d. Limitations to the evaluation design. 
e. Dissemination plan (designed in collaboration with USAID). 
The design will become an annex to the evaluation report. The evaluation design will be shared with the 
implementing partner before being finalized.
All dissemination plans should be developed with USAID and include information on audiences, 
activities, and deliverables, including any data visualizations, multimedia products, or events to help 
communicate evaluation findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 
If applicable based on the Disclosure of Conflict of Interests Forms submitted with the awardee’s 
proposal, the evaluation design will include a conflict of interest mitigation plan. 
USAID offices and relevant stakeholders are asked to take up to 4 working days to review and 
consolidate. 
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 330
MID-TERM BREIFING AND INTERIM MEETINGS
The evaluation team is expected to hold a mid-term briefing with the COR, the MEL Specialist, and 
CDLO’s COR on the status of the evaluation, including potential challenges and emerging opportunities. 
The team will also provide the evaluation COR with periodic briefings and feedback on the team’s 
findings, as agreed upon during the in-briefing. If desired or necessary, weekly briefings by phone can be 
arranged. 
EARLY REPORT
The evaluation team should deliver an Early Report to the COR and MEL Activity. The Early Report will 
provide a preliminary quantitative and qualitative analysis of primary and secondary information 
gathered. The evaluation team should compare and triangulate all this information to further findings and 
inform discussions.
CLA MEETINGS FOR FINAL REPORT DRAFTING
After the debriefing meeting, the Contractor, through the evaluation team, will make detailed 
presentations (PowerPoint format) of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations to USAID and 
the IP. These spaces will aim to present the collected evidence in-depth and to receive feedback to 
strengthen the evaluation exercise within the framework of a collaborative scheme and active 
participation of the parties. USAID and the IP will submit comments on the presentations to the 
evaluation team, within two weeks after CLA meetings. Recognizing that the review of the 
presentation by USAID and the IP may not agree with all comments, and to be sure that every 
comment is considered carefully by the evaluation team, the Contractor will build a table that lists 
each comment, the response of the evaluation team to the comment, and where the changes resulting 
from the comment – if any – will be found in the final report. This same cell will also indicate if no 
changes were made and why not.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
The evaluation team will be asked to take no more than [number]working days (or as agreed upon in the 
work plan) to respond to and incorporate final draft evaluation reports and presentations comments 
from USAID. The evaluation team lead will then submit the final report to the COR. 
SHORT INFOGRAPHIC
The One Pager should summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main 
evaluation questions, methods, findings, and conclusions (plus recommendations and lessons learned, if 
applicable). The One Pager should communicate the information visually for clarity. This document 
should be done after the final report has been presented and reviewed by USAID.
OTHER EVALUATION DELIVERABLES
SUBMISSION OF DATASET(S) TO THE DEVELOPMENT DATA LIBRARY
Per USAID’s Open Data policy (see ADS 579, USAID Development Data) the Contractor must also 
submit to the COR and the Development Data Library (DDL), at www.usaid.gov/data, in a machine￾readable, non-proprietary format, a copy of any dataset created or obtained in the performance of this 
331 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
award, if applicable. The dataset should be organized and documented for use by those not entirely 
familiar with the intervention or evaluation. 
Please review ADS 579.3.2.2 Types of Data To Be Submitted to the DDL to determine applicability. 
SUBMISSION OF FINAL EVALUATION REPORT TO THE DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE 
CLEARINGHOUSE
Per USAID policy (ADS 201.3.5.18) the Contractor must submit the evaluation final report and its 
summary or summaries to the Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) within three months of 
final approval by USAID. 
EVALUATION TEAM COMPOSITION
The Contractor must provide information about evaluation team members, including their curricula 
vitae, and the responsibilities they will hold within the evaluation, and how each one contributes to the 
SOW. Submissions of writing samples or links to past evaluation reports and related deliverables 
composed by proposed team members are highly desirable. Per ADS 201.3.5.14, all team members must 
provide to USAID a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing 
conflict of interest relative to the project or Activity being evaluated (i.e., a conflict of interest form). 
TABLE 40: REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AND SKILLS 
TITLE (NUMBER OF 
PEOPLE)
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES TEAM MEMBERS’ RELEVANT 
EXPERIENCE 
LOE TEAM MEMBER 
NAMES
MEL-Lead Evaluation 
Expert
1. Close coordination with 
MEL COP and USAID COR.
2. Responsible for staffing, 
SOW development, and 
financial management and 
reporting, staff direction, and 
oversight. 
 MEL activity team
MEL-Evaluation 
specialist and 
quantitative specialist
1. Close coordination with 
MEL COP and USAID COR. 
2. Support in evaluation 
management. 
 MEL activity team
Qualitative analyst 
(1) 
Qualitative data analysis: i) 
Refine the study coding 
system based on the 
methodological design; ii) Sort 
and classify information from 
the fieldwork; iii) Encode and 
integrate interviews and other 
documents in the NVivo 
Release 12 software program; 
iv) Analyze qualitative data
 MEL activity team
Geographical 
Information System 
(GIS) specialist (1)
Provide technical expertise 
on spatial data collection, map 
series creation, compile 
available geospatial data sets, 
conduct spatial analysis, data 
visualization and interpret 
aerial photos or satellite 
images 
 MEL activity team
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 332
TABLE 40: REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AND SKILLS 
Collaborating, 
Learning and 
Adapting (CLA) 
specialist (1)
Lead tasks and efforts to 
ensure evaluation findings and 
recommendations are 
transparent, disseminated, 
and distributed to relevant 
stakeholders. Lead tasks to 
ensure evaluations have a 
collaborative approach.
 MEL activity team
Monitoring specialist 
(1)
Analysis of indicators and 
assessment of the AMELP 
plan. 
 MEL activity team
Evaluation Leader (1)
(Senior)
1. Lead evaluation design, 
methods, management, and 
implementation.
2. Close coordination with 
USAID and the COR in 
leading the evaluation.
3. Leadership in: i) Work plan 
drafting; ii) qualitative and 
quantitative data collection 
design and analysis; iii) data 
collection strategy; iv) 
Leadership and support in the 
collection of qualitative 
information at local, regional 
and national levels; v) final 
report drafting; v) final report 
presentation. 
4. Oversee the quality and 
timeliness of the data 
collection implemented by a 
local firm.
5. Oversee the anonymization 
process of qualitative and 
quantitative data.
6. Lead debriefs and 
presentations to USAID and 
the Implementing Partner.
1. Experience managing 
complex international 
evaluations, solid (at least 3-5 
years) experience as an 
evaluation team leader.
2. Excellent English and Spanish 
writing skills.
3. Knowledge in institutional 
strengthening and territorial 
development is preferred.
TBD TBD
Thematic Consultant 
(2)
(Mid-level)
Leadership in: i) Work plan 
drafting; ii) qualitative and 
quantitative analysis; iii) design 
instruments for data 
collection; iv) revision of 
primary and secondary 
sources of information;
v) Responsible for the 
collection of qualitative 
information at local, regional 
and national levels; 
vi) drafting of the final report.
1. More than seven (7) years of 
experience in conducting 
evaluations with some degree 
of qualitative analysis.
2. Expert in territorial and 
community development, 
preferably in rural areas 
affected by armed conflict. 
(first consultant).
-Expert in rural development 
(second consultant).
3. Relevant experience in 
USAID evaluation approaches.
4. Proven analytical thinking, 
accuracy, communication, and 
interpersonal skills and 
teamwork.
5. Fully written and speaking 
English and Spanish proficiency.
TBD TBD
Quantitative 
methods 
expert/specialist (1)
Leadership in: i) Quantitative 
methodology for the Work 
plan drafting including 
1. Graduate degree or higher 
in economics, statistics, social 
sciences, and related fields.
TBD TBD
333 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
TABLE 40: REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS AND SKILLS 
sampling methodology; ii) 
design instruments for 
quantitative data collection; 
iv) triangulation of sources of 
information; v) drafting of the 
final quantitative report; vi) 
Collaborating, Learning, and 
Adapting (CLA) activities for 
quantitative results.
2. A minimum of 7 -seven years of experience conducting 
quantitative research;
3. Proven experience in 
conducting high-quality 
quantitative analysis.
4. Education in a specific 
subject area, with country 
experience, would be helpful.
5. Strong background and 
training in mixed methods 
research.
6. Experience and knowledge 
of data analysis and data 
management techniques.
7. Candidates with high 
proficiency in English is 
required.
Qualitative methods 
expert/specialist (1)
Leadership in: i) Qualitative 
methodology for the Work 
plan drafting; ii) design 
instruments for qualitative 
data collection; iv) 
triangulation of sources of 
information; v) drafting of the 
final qualitative report; vi) 
Collaborating, Learning, and 
Adapting (CLA) activities for 
qualitative results.
1. Graduate degree or higher 
in social sciences and related 
fields.
2. A minimum of 7 -seven 
years of experience conducting 
qualitative research;
3. Proven experience in 
conducting high-quality 
qualitative analysis.
4. Knowledge in community 
and institutional strengthening 
preferable. 
5. Strong background and 
training in mixed methods 
research.
6. Experience and knowledge 
of qualitative data analysis and 
qualitative data management 
techniques.
7. Candidates with high 
proficiency in English is 
required.
TBD TBD
Evaluation Planning 
specialist
(Mid-level)
Lead planning each step of the 
evaluation, including a detailed 
list of activities, resources 
needed, and time frame.
Coordinate quantitative and 
qualitative data collection by 
implementing partners and 
data collection firms.
Coordinate all the 
arrangements for field data 
collection with MEL’s activity 
administrative staff.
Coordinate the delivery of all 
evaluation’s outputs, including 
all intermediate documents, 
presentations, and data.
Support evaluation team 
supervision. 
BA in economics, social 
sciences, project management, 
government, political sciences, 
and related areas of 
knowledge.
Master’s Degree or two (2) 
years of graduate education.
At least seven (7) years of 
experience managing 
evaluations. 
Proficient computer skills 
including Microsoft Word, 
Excel, and Outlook. Experience 
in STATA or related programs 
desirable.
Must be a legal resident of 
Colombia. 
Intermediate or advance 
knowledge of written and 
spoken English.
TBD TBD
Quantitative data 
collection (firm)
Quantitative data collection. Proven experience in 
household level surveys in 
conflict areas of Colombia.
TBD TBD
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 334
EVALUATION SCHEDULE
The MEL Activity will propose the evaluation schedule bearing into consideration that the complete 
schedule cannot exceed 28 weeks. The below evaluation schedule is illustrative for the MEL Activity to 
present the time frame and can be updated in collaboration with USAID prior to finalization of the work 
plan. 
TABLE 41. SUGGESTED SCHEDULE
PHASE DESCRIPTION APPROXIMATE DURATION (TIMELINE)
Phase 1: Planning Initial planning, design, and desk review. ~1 month (weeks 1-4)
Phase 2: 
Fieldwork
Fieldwork, data collection, compilation, 
tabulation, and analyses.
~3 months (weeks 5-18) 
Phase 3:
Final Report
Final report drafting, revisions, 
presentations, and approval. ~2 months (weeks 19-28)
*includes 1-month contingency time. 
Total Evaluation study achieved Maximum 7 months (28 weeks)
TABLE 42. ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT IN DAYS BY ACTIVITY
NO POSITION (# PEOPLE)
SOW WORK 
PLAN DATA COLLECTION DRAFT FINAL 
REPORT
MONTH 
1
MONTH 
2
MONTH 
3
MONTH 
4
MONTH 
5
MONTH 
6
1 Evaluation Leader (1) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
2 Evaluation Planning Specialist (1) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
3 Thematic Consultant (2) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
4 Quantitative methods expert (1) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
5 Qualitative methods expert (1) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
6 Quantitative data collection (firm) TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
TOTAL
FINAL REPORT FORMAT
1. Abstract.
2. Executive Summary.
3. Evaluation Purpose.
4. Background on the Context and the Strategies/Projects/Activities being Evaluated.
5. Evaluation Questions.
6. Methodology.
335 | ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION USAID.GOV
7. Limitations to the Evaluation.
8. Findings, Conclusions, and (If Applicable) Recommendations.
9. Annexes. 
See the Evaluation Toolkit for the How-To Note on Preparing Evaluation Reports and ADS 201mah, 
USAID Evaluation Report Requirements. An optional Evaluation Report Template is also available in the 
Evaluation Toolkit. 
The evaluation abstract of no more than 250 words should describe what was evaluated, evaluation 
questions, methods, and key findings or conclusions. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages 
and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, 
methods, findings, and conclusions (plus recommendations and lessons learned, if applicable). The 
evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be 
disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation 
methods (e.g., in sampling; data availability; measurement; analysis; any potential bias such as 
sampling/selection, measurement, interviewer, response, etc.) and their implications for conclusions 
drawn from the evaluation findings.
Annexes to the report must include: 
• Evaluation SOW (updated, not the original, if there were any modifications).
• Evaluation methods.
• All data collection and analysis instruments used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, 
checklists, and discussion guides.
• All sources of information or data identified and listed.
• Statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, 
implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team, if applicable. 
• Signed disclosure of conflict-of-interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to a 
lack of or describing existing conflicts of interest.
• Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and role 
on the team.
CRITERIA TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT
Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation 
reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure quality.
• Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or Activity.
USAID.GOV ANNEXES – CDLO MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION | 336
• Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, and 
succinctly.
• The Executive Summary should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical 
elements of the report.
• Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the 
evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with 
USAID.
• Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information or data properly 
identified.
• Limitations to the evaluation should be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the 
limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable 
differences between comparator groups, etc.).
• Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions.
• Conclusions should be specific, concise, and include an assessment of quality and strength of evidence 
to support them supported by strong quantitative and/or qualitative evidence.
• If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately assessed 
for both males and females. 
• If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should be 
action-oriented, practical, and specific. 
See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Checklist and 
Review Template from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance.