Heifer Project International
Building Capacity Through the Cornerstones Model 
Final Evaluation
September, 2000
Project No. 938-0158
Cooperative Agreement 
No. FAO-A-00-97-00050-50
This report was prepared for AMA Technologies, Inc. under contract number FAO-C-00-
95-00036-00 with the Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation, Bureau for 
Humanitarian Response, USAID. 
Team Members: Curtis Schaeffer Jane Yudelman
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 4
HPI Headquarters Report 5
I. Introduction 5
II. Evaluation Methodology 6
III. Headquarters Program Implementation and Support 7
A. Progress Towards Meeting Objectives 7
B. The Cornerstones Model 8
C. Gender 10
D. Impact 11
E. Program Management 12
F. Financial Management 13
G. Sustainability 14
IV. Recommendations 15
Attachment 1: List of People Interviewed 19
Attachment 2: Documents Consulted 20
Bolivia Country Report 21
I. Introduction 21
II Evaluation Methodology 22
III. Findings and Conclusions 23
A. Progress Towards Meeting the Country-specific Objectives
of the Matching Grant: A Summary 23
B. Heifer-Bolivia Strategy and Role 24
C. Cornerstones Model 25
D. Gender 25
E. Impact 26
F. Projects and Project Sustainability 27
G. Staffing and Support from Headquarters 30
H. Finance and Administration 31
I. Response to 1996 Final Evaluation Recommendations 31
IV. Recommendations 32
Attachment 1: Evaluation Itinerary 35
Attachment 2: Summary Recommendations from 1996 Final Evaluation
of the Heifer-Bolivia Program 36
Attachment 3: Documents Consulted 37
3
Indonesia Country Report 38
I. Introduction 38
II Evaluation Methodology 39
III Findings and Conclusions 40
A. Progress Towards Meeting the Country-specific Objectives
of the Matching Grant: A Summary 41
B. Heifer-Indonesia’s Strategy and Strategic Considerations 42
C. Cornerstones Model 46
D. Gender 49
E. Impact 49
F. Projects 50
G. Staffing and Support from Headquarters 53
H. Finances and Administration 53
IV. Recommendations 55
Attachment 1: Evaluation Itinerary 59
Attachment 2: Some Thoughts on Planning, Learning and Support Grants 60
Attachment 3: Documents Consulted 62
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
“Building Capacity Through the Cornerstone Model” is a matching grant cooperative 
agreement between Heifer Project International (HPI) and the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID). The three year grant was initiated on October 1, 
1997. This is one of a series of matching grants between the two organizations, all of 
which have been designed to strengthen different organizational capacities of HPI. Under 
the current grant, the implementation and institutionalization of the Cornerstone Model—
a values-based planning and management approach and set of tools—was expected to 
strengthen HPI’s capacity to deliver basic services to partner organizations and 
communities in order to implement sustainable development in its global programs.
Like the previous matching grants, HPI matched the USAID contribution on a one-to-one 
dollar basis. Like the previous matching grants, there is significant evidence of 
organizational improvement and strengthening at HPI headquarters, in the three 
participating country offices (Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Indonesia) and throughout the 
respective regions.
This evaluation report does not include the Heifer-Zimbabwe participation in the 
matching grant due to general insecurity in the country at the time of the scheduled visit 
by the evaluation team. The report does focus on the programs of Heifer-Bolivia and 
Heifer-Indonesia, which present two greatly contrasted pictures of country offices and 
programs. Heifer-Bolivia has more than 40 years experience and a seasoned national staff 
while Heifer-Indonesia was largely started from “scratch” with new staff-expatriate 
consultants and nationals. Both country offices developed different strategic plans and 
have had different results.
HPI headquarters made a major commitment to the grant in terms of matching dollars 
and staff resources. As in 1996 after the previous matching grant, HPI faces challenges to 
strengthen the overall mission and clarify the role(s) of the organization although it is 
now more capable and better equipped to address them. The Cornerstone Model 
continues to support HPI’s efforts to promote holistic development through the 
implementation of livestock projects. Gender and impact are more fully institutionalized 
as key program initiatives, but require further attention and reinforcement. Training 
continues to be a strength of the organization, however, there remain questions about the 
transfer of skills and the impact of training. Partnerships and capacity-building are as 
problematic as ever because of the difficult nature of the work, and HPI can assist 
country offices to establish criteria and strategies for phasing out of projects. Oversight 
and accountability at all levels will become more important to the success of the 
organization as the move toward decentralization accelerates in the coming years. 
Finally, the Cornerstone Model has proven its value to the organization. It must continue 
to be examined and improved upon to take into account the evolving nature of rural 
development throughout the world. HPI has a proud past and a bright future and the 
Cornerstone Model should be an important part of that future.
5
HPI HEADQUARTERS REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
For the last ten years Heifer Project International (HPI) has worked with AID 
Washington on three matching grants designed to strengthen institutional capacity in key 
program areas. Each grant has built on the successes of the previous one. In order to 
better understand the context from which the current grant (the Cornerstones Model 
Grant) emerged, the main accomplishments of the two earlier grants are described below.
The Evaluation Grant (1990-1992)—This assisted HPI to: 
· Develop a one-person monitoring and evaluation office
· Put in place a uniform system of accountability, country program reviews, which 
paved the way for strategic planning
· Write and publish two widely used manuals—“Looking Back and Looking 
Forward: A Participatory Approach to Evaluation” and “Livestock for a Small 
Earth: The Role of Animals in a Just and Sustainable World”
The Training Grant (1994-1996)—This assisted HPI to:
· Institutionalize a participatory self-evaluation methodology
· Take the first steps at measuring impact
· Develop and refine a values-based planning and management approach, the 
Cornerstones Model, and publish a manual entitled “The Cornerstones Model: 
Values-based Planning and Management”
In September, 1997, PVC/USAID awarded HPI $1,275,002 for the Cornerstones Model 
Grant (1997-2000). HPI committed $1,612,256, exceeding the required match by 
approximately $400,000, thus indicating its commitment to the purpose of the grant.
The purpose of the Cornerstones Model Grant has been to strengthen HPI’s capacity to 
implement sustainable development in its global program through the delivery of 
development services, such as technical assistance, gender analysis, monitoring and 
documentation of project results in three geographic regions—Andean, Southern Africa, 
and Southeast Asia. To this end, the grant focused specifically on the following key 
areas:
· Institutionalizing HPI’s Cornerstone Model
· Strengthening HPI’s gender initiatives
· Measuring impact
Although these initiatives were expected to benefit many of HPI’s programs in the three 
regions, Bolivia, Zimbabwe and Indonesia were identified as focal points for grant 
activities
6
Program implementation began in October 1997. A headquarters-based mid-term review 
was completed in July, 1999. This final evaluation was initiated roughly three months 
before the expected completion of the grant. HPI has since requested and received a six 
month no-cost extension.
This evaluation report is divided into three sections. The first addresses the headquarters￾level evaluation and the more global issues emerging from the administration of the 
grant. The second and third sections are in-depth evaluations of the Bolivia and Indonesia 
programs respectively. An in-depth evaluation of the Zimbabwe program is not included 
here as the Zimbabwean political situation made it unwise for the evaluation team to visit 
the country during this evaluation. 
II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation work began with a desk review of documents provided by HPI to the 
evaluators, Curt Schaeffer and Jane Yudelman. This was followed by meetings on the 22-
23 June at the HPI headquarters in Little Rock. These meetings provided the evaluation 
team with an opportunity to meet with Jenny Shumaker (the former Director of 
Evaluation) who was coordinating the matching grant evaluation and review and clarify 
the scope of work, discuss expectations and determine who needed to be interviewed at 
headquarters. Discussions also focused on identifying the key areas that needed to be 
explored in the field portion of the evaluation. This information helped to inform the 
evaluators when they subsequently developed discussion guides for use in the evaluation.
Field visits were planned for three countries—Bolivia, Indonesia and Zimbabwe—but 
due to ongoing political unrest, the trip to Zimbabwe was eventually postponed until next 
year. The Bolivia evaluation was conducted from the 16-26 July and the Indonesia 
evaluation from 1-15 August. In Bolivia, the core team consisted of Curt Schaeffer, 
Jennifer Shumaker and Elizabeth Huba-Mang, a locally hired consultant. In Indonesia it 
consisted of Jane Yudelman, Jennifer Shumaker and Rienzzie Kern (the newly hired 
Director of Planning and Evaluation). In both cases, local staff joined the evaluation. (See 
Bolivia and Indonesia Country Reports for further details of team composition and 
itinerary.)
In both countries the evaluation began with a series of discussions with the HPI country 
office staff concerning the program’s strategy, accomplishments and directions, progress 
made with regard to the Cornerstones Model, gender and the impact studies, relationships 
with NGOs and communities, support from headquarters, and finances and 
administration. Sessions to discuss the expectations of the country staff and the plans for 
the evaluation were also held. These were followed by field visits during which the 
evaluation team held group discussions with NGO staff and members of the community 
organizations, conducted interviews with individual project beneficiaries and visited the 
animals associated with the project.
7
At the end of each evaluation, HPI country staff was involved in discussions concerning 
the conclusions and recommendations and was given an opportunity to seek clarifications 
and to respond to the recommendations. The individual Country Reports describe the 
process used in each country in greater detail.
The evaluators again visited HPI headquarters in Little Rock from 26-31 August. During 
this time they met with and interviewed almost all of the staff1
 who was involved with the 
matching grant. (See Attachment 1: List of People Interviewed) During this time HPI also 
arranged for Dr. Felder of Bradley University to present to the staff and evaluators the 
early findings emanating from the impact study data. Time was also set-aside for the 
evaluators to present to HPI their findings and draft recommendations from the field 
evaluations. The evaluators devoted the last day of this visit to developing the 
recommendations for the headquarters portion of the grant, before returning to their 
respective locations to write the report.
III. HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND SUPPORT
It is important to emphasize that the discussions here are based on only two—Bolivia and 
Indonesia—of the three target countries. As a result of not being able to visit Zimbabwe, 
the African approach and achievements—which may or may not change the overall 
assessment—are not captured here. Where possible reference to Zimbabwe is made, but 
these references are drawn from documents and discussions with HPI headquarters staff 
and not from first hand observations and assessments. Tentative plans have been made to 
visit Zimbabwe in January-February, 2001.
A. Progress Towards Meeting Objectives
This section discusses the progress made towards meeting the specific program 
objectives as outlined in the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP). The progress made 
towards meeting the specific country-level objectives are discussed in each of the 
Country Reports. In general, HPI has progressed well and met most of the specific 
objectives that it set for the program. Since the assessment of these is incomplete without 
the inclusion of Zimbabwe in this evaluation, each specific objective is discussed below 
in terms of the intent rather than the actual numbers specified. 
1. Train:
a) HPI staff from 12 countries and staff from 30 partner organizations in 
how to apply the concepts and tools of the Cornerstones Model; and 
b) 18 partner organizations how to use gender analysis as a tool for assuring 
that both women and men farmers are given fair and equitable access to 
social and economic benefits of development
The evaluators have confirmed that regional-level training, with attendance of 
staff from numerous HPI country programs (and in some cases partner 
organizations and leaders of community organizations) was carried out in the 
Andean and South East Asia regions on the implementation of the Cornerstones 
 
1
The Gender Coordinator was not present in Little Rock, but instead was interviewed over the phone.
8
Model and on gender analysis. Additionally, Heifer-Bolivia and Heifer-Indonesia 
have also conducted a number of training workshops for numerous NGOs and 
community organizations in both the Cornerstones Model and gender analysis.
2. Develop 12 impact studies of selected projects to document social and 
economic benefits and constraints in HPI supported projects:
During the course of this grant, it was decided that undertaking 12 impact studies 
was too ambitious an objective. HPI decided, instead, to conduct one impact study 
in Bolivia, Zimbabwe and Indonesia, with each study covering about four 
communities. These studies are underway, but are not as far along as originally 
anticipated. Some data has been entered into the computer, making it possible for 
HPI’s partner in this exercise—Bradley University—to conduct some rudimentary 
analysis. A report on these findings is anticipated by the end of September
3. Hire three additional field staff (one in each country) as coordinators of 
training, monitoring and evaluation of program activities: 
Heifer-Bolivia and Heifer-Indonesia have each hired a coordinator (paid 100% 
with AID grant funds) to support their efforts in training, and monitoring and 
evaluation. In Heifer-Bolivia, this person is designated as the Training 
Coordinator and in Indonesia as the Program Assistant. Both have played 
important roles in their respective country programs.
4. Hire consultants in each target country to work on strategies and plans for 
marketing, micro-enterprises and other specialized areas:
For this purpose, each of the target countries was provide with a fund for 
technical services to hire consultants “for marketing, micro-enterprises and other 
specialized areas.” For some reason, both Heifer-Bolivia and Heifer-Indonesia did 
not take full advantage of this fund, even when in Bolivia’s case a need for 
marketing assistance was articulated by the staff. The no-cost extension does 
provide each country with a window of opportunity to effectively utilize these 
funds and each Country Report suggests effective ways to use these funds.
5. Assist three thousand farm families to improve their economic and social 
well being through HPI projects:
Numerous farm families have improved their economic and social well being 
through HPI projects in the target countries. Over 1200 farm families have 
benefited in the Bolivia program and some 298 families have benefited in the 
Indonesia program. It is still difficult to quantify the extent to which these 
families have improved their economic and social well being through HPI 
projects. However, it is expected that the final analysis of the impact studies will 
provide some insight into these areas.
B. The Cornerstones Model
HPI has been developing and refining the Cornerstones Model over a number of years, 
and in October 1996 published the manual entitled “The Cornerstones Model: Value￾based Planning and Management.” Under this matching grant, HPI proposed to continue 
9
the process of institutionalizing the use of this model through training within HPI itself 
and in partner organizations.
Perhaps HPI’s most notable achievement under this grant has been the extent to which it 
has been able to institutionalize the Cornerstones Model. Cornerstones Model training 
both at the regional-level in Asia and Latin America and at the country-level in Bolivia 
and Indonesia has been extensive over the grant period. Additionally, as part of the 
institutionalization process, HPI recently facilitated the “Cornerstones Model Dialogue” 
in which HPI representatives of Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Indonesia, and Zimbabwe came 
together to discuss their respective perspectives on the use of the Cornerstones Model.
The Cornerstones Model is being used by a number of country offices, including Heifer￾Indonesia and Heifer-Bolivia, to develop strategic plans. The Cornerstones Model has 
also been adopted in the development of the strategic plan for HPI’s Asia/South Pacific 
(A/SP)Region and is being used by a number of departments within HPI headquarters. At 
the country-level, there is plenty of evidence that the Cornerstones Model has been 
widely disseminated and is appreciated and used both by NGOs and community 
organizations as a planning tool that builds on existing resources, promotes values and 
leads to a concrete strategy. The matching grant, therefore, has clearly contributed to this 
institutionalization process by supporting regional and country training events and the 
partial salaries of the Training Director and the former Director of Evaluation, both of 
whom have played important roles in the process.
Having said that, a number of wider organizational issues have emerged as a result of this 
institutionalization process. The use of the Cornerstones Model at the community level 
raises questions about the extent to which HPI can and wants to become involved in 
broader community development, as opposed to development through livestock-related 
projects. This unresolved issue is affecting the way in which the Cornerstones Model and 
the 12 cornerstones2
 are being implemented in various countries. In Indonesia, for 
example, the Cornerstones Model is being promoted as part of an open-ended community 
development process, which may or may not lead to Heifer-Indonesia funding. Up until 
now, there has been no attempt to introduce HPI’s cornerstones to project holders and 
participating community organizations, which means that certain key cornerstones (such 
as Genuine Need and Justice, Training, Improved Animal Management and Nutrition and 
Income) are not being adequately addressed in the projects. In Zimbabwe the 
Cornerstones Model is used in communities after it has been determined that Heifer￾Zimbabwe is willing to consider funding a livestock project there and the 12 cornerstones 
are then used to form the foundation for the projects that emerge. In Bolivia, while the 
Cornerstones Model is used by communities, the communities are encouraged to develop 
their own cornerstones. What emerges usually is a set of values devoid of the technical 
emphasis (such as Improved Animal Management) and intended benefits (Nutrition and 
Income). 
 
2
Passing on the Gifts, Accountability, Sharing and Caring, Sustainability and Self- reliance, Improved 
Animal Management, Nutrition and Income, Gender and Family Focus, Genuine Need and Justice, 
Improving the Environment, Full Participation, Training and Education and Spirituality
10
From these experiences, it is clear that to further the institutionalization of the 
Cornerstones Model, HPI headquarters needs to determine certain important parameters. 
Firstly, in the short term, in order to better inform and guide the country offices, HPI 
needs to set minimum standards and expectations with respect for the use of the 
Cornerstones Model and the 12 cornerstones. These then need to be shared with the 
country offices. Secondly, in the long term, HPI needs to continue its deliberations on 
how to link its livestock focus to broader community development issues and also make 
these clear to the country offices.
C. Gender
Gender is one of the 12 HPI cornerstones and was identified through this grant as an area 
on which the organization chose to place greater emphasis. The issue is not new to HPI as 
the Women in Livestock Development (WiLD) program was initiated earlier this decade 
with the hiring of Beth Miller to be the gender specialist at HPI headquarters. 
Gender as a program and organizational issue has evolved from a strict focus on women 
and women’s only activities to the family-both men and women taking responsibility for
their own development in a collaborative not divisive relationships. The organizational 
commitment to gender is clear—under this grant, HPI is paying 75% of the Gender 
Coordinator’s salary with the matching grant paying the remaining 25% and after its 
completion, HPI intends to cover 100% of the cost associated with this position.
The focus on gender in Latin America again predates the matching grant. The grant 
served to elevate the issue in terms of importance and provide necessary resources to 
push the gender analysis training ahead. Regional training was conducted in Guatemala 
in 1997 and in Ecuador in 2000. In the meantime, Bolivia has trained NGO staff and 
leaders of community organizations while meeting periodically with Heifer staff in 
Ecuador and Peru. The three Andean countries have developed a coordination strategy to 
develop plans and indicators on gender and then meet to compare experiences and learn 
from each other. 
In Asia, a regional workshop was in Thailand in 1998. HPI-Indonesia has since
conducted 3 in-country gender workshops, training a total of 21 NGOs. NGOs report that 
staff have been benefited from this training, but they need additional training before they 
feel totally qualified to bring gender training to the community and a gender focus to 
projects. Given Heifer-Bolivia’s experiences and successes and Heifer-Indonesia’s 
relative newness in this area, Heifer-Indonesia should be encouraged to draw from the 
experiences of Bolivia as it begins to strengthen its work in this area.
At HPI headquarters, the commitment to gender is clear in its importance to development 
programs as well as to the workplace. A Gender Policy Task Force was created in 1997 
and the organization adopted a gender policy in 1998. A set of goals and a gender action 
plan have not yet been adopted. In 1999, the Accountability Committee was established 
to set criteria—including for gender—for affiliates and country offices. HPI headquarters 
held a gender workshop in March 1999 that included US program and headquarters staff. 
In June 2000, a three day ‘Gender Equity’ workshop was held at headquarters for staff. 
11
This was followed by a workshop on ‘Assessing Social Impact’ in July. In addition, 
during the last year a gender audit was conducted with the support of Interaction and a 
report is forthcoming. There was also a salary review that looked at gender equity and 
found that the salaries are fair although low at the lower grades. 
Again, the positive cash flow of the organization has facilitated the support for gender by 
making it possible to fund positions supporting the gender initiative at HPI headquarters 
and in country offices. There still is not universal acceptance of gender as a justice issue 
nor full understanding of how gender analysis is applied to programs and how it benefits 
the work of HPI. This can only be overcome through effective training of staff and by 
holding all staff accountable for their actions and for the actions of those they supervise. 
Moreover, in order to apply gender more evenly and consistently throughout the 
organization, HPI needs to develop a comprehensive strategy that includes indicators for 
implementation.
D. Impact
HPI has been grappling with the issue of how to move from anecdotal reports of impact 
to developing a system that measures and quantifies the impact. As part of this effort, 
HPI planned under this grant to develop 12 impact studies of selected projects to 
document social and economic benefits and constraints in HPI supported projects. To 
better achieve this, HPI entered into a partnership with Bradley University, which was to 
contribute its technical skills to design the studies and analyze the results. This effort and 
relationship has been beset with problems including poor communication between 
Bradley University and the target country offices; data collection and management 
problems; and difficulties in adhering to the pre-determined dates for products and 
reports. Perhaps at the root of many of these problems is the fact that Bradley University 
volunteered its services, without recognizing the extent of coordination and work 
required to manage the process and produce results. And from HPI’s side, the fact that 
Bradley University has been volunteering its time and skills meant that it had no real 
recourse—aside from reclaiming the data—when problems emerged. 
It is clear with all of these problems that this is the portion of the matching grant that has 
not made as much progress as originally intended. Having said that, there has definitely 
been some forward movement in this area since the mid-term review was conducted in 
July 1999. One very significant achievement has been the effort that the Bolivia office 
has put into taking ownership over the process and data, independent of Bradley 
University. Heifer-Bolivia took the initiative to hire a local consultant who entered and 
analyzed the data, and shared initial findings with the staff. Based on the interest 
stimulated through this process, Heifer-Bolivia has developed a plan to continue these 
efforts to measure impact in some form beyond the grant. Additionally, the interest of 
both the Ecuador and the Peru country offices have been piqued with this process and 
they are expressing interest in pursuing something along similar lines. In Indonesia, 
partly as a result of frustrations encountered in undertaking the impact studies, the 
country office has instead decided to invest more of its energy in building on the 
12
“Volkswagen3
” (also referred to as the “bicycle”) system that was introduced to country 
offices by the former Director of Evaluation. Indonesia’s efforts in this area might help 
inform other country offices as well as headquarters, where there has been a general lack 
of enthusiasm for a simple impact measurement system coupled with lack of consensus 
on the choice of indicators for measuring impact.
All this aside, data collection is underway in all three countries and data has been entered 
making it possible to analyze and develop some rudimentary4
 findings and conclusions. 
Dr. Felder of Bradley University has committed himself to produce a report with these 
conclusions by the 30th September. Whether or not he produces this document by the 
stipulated date, HPI should terminate its relationship with Bradley University and seek 
out other expertise to assist in the analysis.
The matching grant has definitely contributed to raising greater institutional awareness 
about the need to measure impact at HPI. This increased concern for measuring impact 
has led HPI to expand the number of staff who will be responsible for evaluation. The 
newly created Organizational Development Department (ODD) will eventually have 
under its umbrella 5 people (instead of 1) who will deal with evaluation in some way. 
Additionally, HPI intends to strengthen evaluation capacity within the area programs and 
most programs area programs are planning to recruit regional staff who will fall under the 
umbrella of their respective area programs, but will be functionally supported by the 
headquarters-based evaluation team.
E. Program Management
The Cornerstones Model Matching Grant has been successful because HPI made a 
commitment to it in terms of staff time, organizational resources and most importantly 
because it was viewed as an opportunity for organizational strengthening and growth. No 
one interviewed at HPI headquarters or in Bolivia and Indonesia felt like the matching 
grant had been imposed upon them, nor that it was an onerous undertaking. 
Country-specific objectives for the most part have been achieved or are close to 
achievement. HPI headquarters has supported the country office in meeting these by 
providing training support and ongoing assistance on financial matters. Heifer-Bolivia 
expressed satisfaction with the level of service and management support they have 
received from HPI headquarters, while Heifer-Indonesia staff made it clear that they 
could have benefited from more support. Heifer-Indonesia was a new program, being 
initiated under the auspices of a small consulting firm (working only part-time for HPI) 
charged with the responsibility of hiring and building the staff, designing and 
implementing an experimental program and accountable for the financial management of 
the grant. Given this context, this evaluation also confirms that Heifer-Indonesia could 
 
3
 The former Director of Evaluation developed and introduced a three tiered system for measuring impact 
in HPI. This consisted of a) the “Mercedes”, the academically rigorous studies to be conducted by Bradley 
University; b) the “Honda”, a continuation of a longitudinal, somewhat less complex study initiated in 1993 
in Tanzania, Uganda, India and China; and c) the “Volkswagen” a simple system for country offices to 
measure project impact. 
4
 Rudimentary because data collection is not yet complete.
13
have clearly benefited from more hands on management and guidance from the 
Asia/South Pacific Area Director and from the Finance Department. 
HPI has been promoting and developing a horizontal management within the regions, a 
result of which is that at times the line management authority appears to be weak. While 
there is nothing wrong with a horizontal management structure, it must be clear that in 
the end someone has to take charge and make decisions and then be accountable for those 
decisions. Otherwise, roles, responsibilities and expectations are not clear and there is 
little accountability. In theory, under the current system at HPI, Country Representatives 
or Directors report to the Area Directors who hold them accountable for all aspects of 
their operations. In practice though, Country Directors are semi-autonomous with 
diminished accountability from headquarters. The key leverage point for HPI 
headquarters is the control of the financial resources, which should be enough to ensure a 
dynamic relationship with Country Directors. Area Directors have the authority to 
challenge and push Country Directors who in turn can and should manage up with their 
bosses. Both should expect a great deal from each other as this is a key relationship for 
the success of the organizational. 
Area directors are supported by a cadre of Program Assistants who provide everything 
from financial tracking support to report writing to training in the field. The Program 
Assistants are the unsung heroes of HPI because they play such a vital role in their daily 
backstopping of country offices. Their efforts are greatly appreciated by Heifer country 
offices. 
F. Financial Management
Managing USAID matching grants is not new for HPI, but it is a fact that HPI has 
experienced unprecedented growth in the last two years. This has put an undue burden on 
the Finance and International Program Departments. The two departments have had to 
work closely together to ensure that the three matching grant countries received daily 
backstopping, financial tracking and help with reporting. 
The Program Assistants have had to assume the bulk of this work with help from Linda 
Thomas, HPI’s internal auditor. According to Ken Harrison, the Chief Financial Officer, 
there is a plan and funding support to hire an additional finance technician to help with 
matching grants and ease the plight of the Program Assistants. As long as Program 
Assistants are expected to do work they were not trained for, they should have the benefit 
of available training such as the Technoserve training for financial managers on AID 
regulations and compliance issues. 
The most recent financial records are through June 30, 2000 so it is not possible to fully 
assess the success of Heifer’s management of the USAID monies. However, as of June 
30, 76% of the USAID grant funds and 85% of the HPI match had been expended with 
three months left in the grant period. 
HPI Program Assistants maintain that Heifer-Bolivia and Heifer-Zimbabwe are on target 
for spending against budget through the original termination—September 30—date of the 
14
matching grant. Both received an additional $39,000 in USAID monies that was 
redistributed from the HPI headquarters budget. This money is expected to be used for 
project support. As of June 30, Heifer-Indonesia had spent about 55% of the funds 
allotted to it through this grant. Of the remaining 45%, 60% was intended for projects.
Heifer-Bolivia Director Roger Hinojosa said that his country office is a stronger 
operation today as a result of having had to design, implement and manage two USAID 
matching grants. He believes that the managerial skills of his staff are stronger and that 
they now have greater credibility with donors when they decide to pursue their own 
funding. Bolivia’s accountant/administrator, Carlos Tello, was satisfied with the financial 
support and guidance he received from the Latin America Program Assistant. 
Unlike Bolivia, Heifer-Indonesia started its operations under a USAID grant. The staff 
expressed concern that they did not receive adequate financial management training at the 
outset of the grant period, nor ongoing support to establish systems and reporting 
mechanisms. This resulted in a number of recording and reporting problems, which have 
since been resolved with the assistance of the Program Assistant for Asia. The Program 
Assistant also expressed concern that adequate training be given to support countries 
implementing USAID grants.
G. Sustainability
To fully understand organizational sustainability it is necessary to go back and look at the 
totality of USAID-HPI matching grants during this past decade. The Evaluation Grant 
(1990-92) supported the creation of a program accountability process based on the 12 
cornerstones that includes project planning, semi-annual monitoring reports and project 
evaluations. It also paved the way for what is soon to be a fully staffed Planning and 
Evaluation Unit at HPI with a five people at headquarters and plans to assign another 
eight technical advisers in the regions. This is a major commitment by HPI that is clearly 
facilitated by a positive financial position. 
The Training Grant (1994-96) provided the funding support and organizational 
commitment for creating the Cornerstones Model which, through the present matching 
grant, is becoming the operational basis for organizational development in Little Rock 
and for the country offices. The Training Grant also established the participatory self￾evaluation system that is now a routine activity in most country offices.
The Cornerstones Model Grant (1997-2000) has been instrumental in institutionalizing 
the Cornerstones Model. While the grant itself serves to highlight the organizational 
commitment to this initiative, in the end it is the country office staff who work hard 
understand it, adapt it, implement it and make it a part of their daily work. And this has 
clearly happened in Bolivia and Indonesia under this grant. This grant has also moved 
HPI farther along in its commitment to measuring the impact of field programs, in 
organization-wide acceptance of gender as a fundamental program issue and in further 
developing a participatory training capacity. As is the case in every organization, there is 
still not universal understanding and acceptance of some of the initiatives, systems or 
15
tools that have been created over the last ten years. Nevertheless, the organization is 
stronger and better equipped today than it was ten years ago.
A further indication of the institutionalization of various grant initiatives is the fact that 
HPI has created a new unit—Organizational Development Department (ODD) 
encompassing planning and evaluation, training and gender services—for which it will 
provide 100% funding support once the current matching grant concludes. Many of the 
services and tools offered by ODD were developed or refined by staff fully or partially 
supported through matching grants.
At the country office level, most of the projects in Bolivia and Indonesia do not have 
three full years of implementation and it is much too early to assess sustainability. What 
was clear to the evaluators in Bolivia, which is further along in its implementation of 
projects, is that attitudes and practices of project participants—men and women—have 
changed through the implementation of Cornerstones Model and the projects in which 
they have participated. 
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Bolivia and Indonesia Country Reports list the specific recommendations for each of 
those programs. What follows here are recommendations that talk to the more global 
issues of the organization and the management and finances of the grant.
Cornerstones Model
1. From this evaluation, it is evident there are varying understandings of, and 
approaches to implementing, the Cornerstones Model and the 12 cornerstones. HPI 
needs to determine for itself a minimum set of standards and expectations on the use 
of the Cornerstones Model and the 12 cornerstones. These standards must be 
conveyed to the country offices and the Area Directors and should address:
· strategic options for applying the Cornerstones Model;
· the extent to which the 12 cornerstones are flexible; and 
· degree of flexibility that exists to incorporate the use of alternative tools in the 
application of the Cornerstones Model.
Gender
2. Gender appears to be viewed as a separate component in HPI programming. Gender 
analysis, therefore, needs to be integrated more fully into the field programs so that it 
is seen as an integral part of programming. One step that would help to facilitate this 
process would be to ensure that the gender dimension is fully incorporated into the 
implementation of the Cornerstones Model.
3. Much of the programmatic gender agenda is field-driven and could benefit from more 
direction from headquarters. The Organizational Development Department should 
therefore provide more direction on gender programming and issues to country 
offices.
16
4. There appear to be inconsistencies across countries and at headquarters in the quality 
and content of gender training. HPI needs to ensure that the training meets a 
predetermined set of minimum standards. This could be done by developing and 
using a base training curriculum and a core staff or set of consultants to work with 
local staff or resource people applying the training.
5. HPI has established a gender policy, the value of which relies on it being effectively 
implemented. HPI, therefore, needs to develop a set of criteria or indicators in order 
to monitor its implementation.
Impact
6. HPI is moving forward with a variety of different impact-related initiatives (e.g. the 
Bradley University impact studies, Bolivia’s country-specific initiative, plans to
collect baseline data in Uganda, the use of the “bicycle” in Indonesia, the creation of 
a new unit that will include more evaluation staff and so on), without having made 
some of the more basic decisions. Without the necessary decisions and structure 
HPI’s efforts in evaluation risk continuing to be disparate, rather than promoting a 
convergence of purpose. HPI needs to develop an evaluation strategy that addresses:
· defining what impact means to the organization;
· developing and agreeing upon a simple set of impact measurement indicators;
· developing a system for coordinating the different impact-related efforts so 
that there is a true convergence of purpose and approaches that is informative 
and useful to various needs of HPI.
7. Bradley University has committed itself to providing a report of rudimentary findings 
and conclusions from the impact studies by 30th September, 2000, which was the 
originally anticipated (prior to the no-cost extension) date on which the matching 
grant would end. On 1st October, HPI should:
· formerly terminate its relationship with Bradley University, retrieving all data 
· identify alternative expertise to assist in the analysis of the data;
· prior to establishing an alternative working relationship to analyze the data, 
HPI should clarify for itself, given the breadth of the data, what end results it 
expects from the analysis; and
· continue to support ongoing impact measurement initiatives in Bolivia where 
the country office has taken ownership of the process, and possibly 
Zimbabwe, pending the results of the field evaluation next year.
Training
8. HPI’s approach to training in and beyond grant-related activities relies heavily on the 
transfer of skills through training of trainer, often starting with regional workshops 
and filtering down to country office staff and NGOs, and then community members. 
This can be an effective way to spread the benefits of training. However, in order to 
ensure that it is effective, HPI needs to develop a system to monitor the adequate 
transfer of skills and subsequent training quality, and impact of training at the 
community level. Such a system would assess the quality of spin-off training events 
and identify the extent to which training skills need to be further developed, and 
would use site visits to assess the application and effectiveness of training at the 
community level.
17
9. Long distance training (also known as online training) is now being used as a tool to 
complement hands-on training, particularly for motivated staff. This is an area that 
HPI may want to explore as a further means of reinforcing training impact.
Partnerships, Capacity-building and New Country Initiatives
10. While in many countries HPI intentionally maintains long-term relationships with 
project holders, HPI must articulate and apply a set of criteria and strategy for 
phasing out of projects. This will help HPI be clear about its development objectives 
(capacity-building and project-related). It will also help HPI to spread and maximize 
its resources.
11. In HPI country programs, efforts are often directed (in varying levels of intensity) to 
capacity-building of project holders, be they community organizations or NGOs. As 
HPI further explores and develops its approach to NGO capacity-building, it needs to 
define and use indicators and tools for measuring capacity-building. A number of 
international organizations are using such indicators and tools and HPI could draw 
upon or adapt these for its own use.
12. The Indonesia country office and program has been established during this grant 
period, not without a number of programmatic and management concerns. HPI should 
consider developing a protocol and strategy to facilitate the establishment of new 
country offices and programs.
Program and Financial Management 
13. This grant has demonstrated the importance of regular management oversight for new 
program initiative, such as Indonesia. It is recommended that the A/SP Area Director 
visit the country office as soon as possible to review the progress of the program and 
provide guidance consistent with the recommendations made in the Indonesia 
Country Report. Including a representative from the Organizational Development 
Department with capacity-building experience could enhance the impact of this visit.
14. HPI is moving towards establishing and using horizontal management systems. These 
systems fit well with HPI’s long-term vision, but at the same time HPI needs to 
ensure that this horizontal management is not implemented to the exclusion of 
oversight and accountability.
15. The no-cost extension will be important to furthering the objectives of the matching 
grant in all three regions. All unspent funds should be programmed on the basis of an 
HPI headquarters-approved budget for the extension period. In the event that funds 
cannot be fully expended in Asia, it is recommended that the remaining funds be 
reallocated to Bolivia and Zimbabwe on the basis of an approved budgeted plan.
16. Diverse program strategies and experiences have emerged under this grant. To further 
the learning agenda, it is recommended that HPI organize a lessons learned workshop 
in Africa for staff from the three target countries.
17. Given the lessons learned from this matching grant and HPI’s growth, for new 
initiatives worldwide HPI should consider developing a common financial system 
based on a minimum set of standards and providing technical support in the use of 
these.
18. The Program Assistants assume a wide range of responsibilities, which include many 
of the financial aspects of the programs. Given their level of responsibility, HPI 
18
should provide more opportunities for training in grant management and financial 
tracking for all Program Assistants.
19. HPI has been going through a growth spurt. This means that programs are 
increasingly better financed and broadened in scope. Country Representatives should 
be encouraged to use simple cost-beneficiary analysis to review ongoing and inform 
new strategies.
19
ATTACHMENT 1: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED
HPI Staff
Asia/South Pacific Area Director Robert Pelant,
Latin America and the Caribbean Area Director Jim Hoey,
Africa Area Director Dan Gudahl
Director of International Programs Jim De Vries
Director of Organizational Development Department Tim Ogborn
Director of Training Jerry Aaker
Gender Coordinator Beth Miller
Former Director of Evaluation Jenny Shumaker
Deputy Director of Planning and Evaluation Kathryn Matchett
Chief Financial Officer Ken Harrison
Program Accountant Linda Thomas
Program Assistants Jennifer Knox
Libby Firth
Francine Hill
Denise Leeson-Provost
Rebecca Alderfer
Other
Bradley University Joe Felder
Impact Evaluation Consultant Elizabeth Huba-Mang
20
ATTACHMENT 2: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
1. Final Evaluation of Heifer Project International’s Integrated Farm Family 
Development Matching Grant IV, Prepared for USAID by Yudelman and Pfohl, 
August 1996.
2. “Building Capacity Through the Cornerstones Model”, Matching Grant Application, 
Fiscal Year 1997 
3. Detailed Implementation Plan, Matching Grant Program “Building Capacity Through
the Cornerstones Model”, Beginning Date: October 1, 1997. 
4. Mid Term Review of Heifer Project International’s Building Capacity through the
Cornerstones Model-Matching Grant V, Prepared for HPI by Jane Yudelman, July
1999.
5. “The Cornerstones Model: Values-based Planning and Management”, Jerry Aaker
and Jennifer Shumaker, HPI, 1996
6. The HPI Affiliate Vision, September 1999
7. Heifer Project International 1999 Annual Report
8. HPI Finance Department-Quarterly Report Summaries October 97-June 2000 for CM 
Matching Grant, Prepared by Linda Thomas, August 2000
9. Heifer Project International Best Gender Practices in Africa Workshop Report,
Compiled by Kudzai Akino, February 7-11, Harare.
10. The Harare Declaration on Gender Integration in the HPI Africa Program, The Africa 
Best Gender Practices Workshop participants, February 11, 2000, Harare.
11. Trip Report Zambia and Zimbabwe, February 1-14, 2000, Beth Miller.
12. Bolivia USAID Matching Grant Cornerstones Workshop Trip Report, April 28-May 
3, 2000, by Dan Gudahl, HPI Africa Area Director
13. Gender Equity: From Theory to Programming to Organizational Change Workshop
for Heifer Project International, June 5-7, 2000. 
14. Assessing Social Impact, July 19, 2000, Dr. Virginia Seitz and Beth Miller, Little
Rock. 
15. History of HPI-AID Grants, August 2000, Jennifer Shumaker, Little Rock. 
21
BOLIVIA COUNTRY REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
Heifer Project International has had a long, productive history in Bolivia since initiating 
activities in 1957. Within the first 10 years, the organization was working in 6 of 9 
departments and was collaborating with 20 different groups/churches. The Methodist 
Church and the Central Mennonite Committee played key roles in supporting early 
Heifer-Bolivia’s goal of delivering animals to poor farmers who then agreed to ‘pass on 
the gift’ to other farmers. 
The programs and organizational structures in Bolivia evolved over time from a loose-ad 
hoc collection of collaborators to an informal alliance of participating 
organizations/committee and individuals to the present, more established operational 
structure. 
The matching grant initiatives of participatory training, gender, impact and partnership 
are not new to HPI nor to Heifer-Bolivia There has always been a strong focus on 
supporting small farmers through livestock development. Heifer-Bolivia recognized in 
the 1960’s that scarce resources could most effectively be invested by establishing 
farmers associations instead of working one-on-one with poor farmers. Further, it was 
decided that greater emphasis had to be placed on training small farmers to manage their 
animals. 
By the early 1980’s, Heifer-Bolivia was beginning to look at development more broadly 
and continued to invest in local ownership of programs by establishing a national board 
overseeing 54 local committees. At the same time, Heifer-Bolivia broke ground by hiring 
an outside group to conduct a comprehensive, participatory evaluation interviewing close 
to 300 program participants with positive findings.
As early as 1987, Heifer-Bolivia recognized the importance of ensuring that women 
participate more fully in their own development. A project to promote ‘women in 
development’ was designed and implemented. Heifer-Bolivia experienced funding 
difficulties throughout the late 1980’s and into the 1990’s although it continued to 
support the development of local NGOs and community based organizations while 
developing a national staff capacity. In 1992 HPI appointed a Bolivian to be the National 
Coordinator and Heifer-Bolivia has had an all-Bolivian staff since then. 
In 1995 the AID-HPI Training Grant was launched and helped Heifer-Bolivia expand 
training activities while focusing on fewer projects and coverage areas. In 1997, the 
Cornerstone Grant was initiated with Bolivia functioning as one of three target countries. 
Heifer-Bolivia’s experience predating the current matching grant demonstrates that issues 
of planning, partnership, gender, participatory evaluation and impact are not new 
strategies or commitments. The Cornerstone Matching Grant has provided the resources 
22
and the organizational impetus to build on years of experience in order to actualize 
values-based planning and management. 
II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team consisted of Curt Schaeffer, the external evaluator, Jennifer 
Shumaker, former Director of Planning and Evaluation, and Elizabeth Huba-Mang, a 
consultant who has spearheaded the Heifer-Bolivia work on impact. Bolivian staff 
included Dr. Roger Hinojosa-National Coordinator, Carlos Tello￾Administrator/Accountant, Carlos Aramayo-Training Coordinator, Denise Caballero￾Gender Issues, Delia Barral-Credit Coordinator and Raul Contreras-Field Worker. 
The initial briefing meeting in Bolivia included all Heifer-Bolivia staff and 
representatives of some of the NGOs they work with. The briefing included a review of 
the itinerary and a presentation on the historical, cultural context that Heifer-Bolivia 
works within. Throughout the 10 day evaluation numerous meetings and interviews were 
conducted with Heifer-Bolivia staff, NGO staff, farmer association leaders and 
community members. The evaluation group visited the community of Las Gamas and the 
El Chore. In El Chore, we met with leaders from four different communities from the 
region. We also visited UNAPEGA offices in Yapacani and Buena Vista. (See 
Attachment 1: Evaluation Itinerary) Visits to two NGO coverage areas (Altiplano, Beni) 
were considered not possible due to time limitations and distances. However, in 
retrospect, a visit to see the Methodist Church project on the Altiplano would have been 
difficult but could have been done. 
 A set of questionnaires were developed by the evaluators prior to travel to Bolivia and 
Indonesia. Questions for NGOs, community organizations and Heifer-Bolivia staff 
focused on the following areas:
· Cornerstones Model training
· gender analysis
· program impact
· program performance
· partnerships
· staffing and financial management
The AID evaluator and Heifer-Bolivia agreed to the following:
· Heifer-Bolivia will prepare and present a report to the evaluator before his 
departure that explains what the organization has done with respect to the 
recommendations from the 1996 Final Evaluation.
· The external evaluation will be conducted that will include field visits and 
interviews with all Heifer staff and representatives of NGOs and community 
organizations.
· The final analysis, conclusions and recommendations will be presented and 
discussed in a participatory manner in order to make it a learning opportunity 
for Heifer-Bolivia staff and participating organizations.
23
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Heifer-Bolivia has exceeded all of the objectives in the Detailed Implementation Plan. 
The Bolivia Director and his staff approached the grant as an opportunity to develop 
organizational capacity while addressing the recommendations from the previous 
matching grant evaluation. 
A. Progress Towards Meeting the Country-specific Objectives of the Matching 
Grant: A Summary 
1. Train seven partner organizations in Bolivia in the Cornerstones Model and 
monitor their use:
Training in values-based planning and management was conducted twice (Feb., 
Sept.) in 1998 with the entire Heifer-Bolivia staff, key personnel from four NGOs 
and leaders from five community organizations; a refresher course was carried out 
in June 1999 with the same participants; conducted 74 workshops on values-based 
planning for the members of 5 community umbrella groups representing 31 
communities with 545 families participating.
2. Train HPI staff from the Andean Region in the Cornerstones Model:
Training in values-based planning and management was facilitated by the HPI 
Training Director in February 1998 and included key staff from seven Latin 
American countries along with 4 NGOs and 3 leaders from community 
organizations; Heifer-Bolivia hosted a dialogue on the application of values-based 
planning and management in May 2000 that included representatives from 
Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Ecuador and Peru in addition to leaders from community 
organizations and NGOs. 
3. Conduct four impact studies:
The impact studies have been carried out by Heifer-Bolivia in three communities 
involving 51 families. The same families have participated in data collection over 
the last three years with there being a summer and winter group for each year. The 
final data will be collected in December 2000 to complete the commitment of the 
matching grant. 
4. Social and economic benefit to 800 beneficiary families in projects:
The combination of projects with community organizations and through the four 
NGOs reached a total of 1248 families that benefited from receiving livestock and 
they “passed on the gift”.
5. Train 50 leaders and extensionists to provide improved services to 
sustainable development projects:
74 leaders and promoters from community organizations have been trained in 
administration and accounting. Over the 3 year period of the grant there have been 
24
numerous meetings with community leaders that have focused on the 
administration and implementation of projects. A leadership training course was 
held in 1999 and follow-up course is planned for 25 leaders on political 
leadership. 
B. Heifer-Bolivia Strategy and Role
The Heifer-Bolivia strategy is to use the Cornerstones Model to develop the 
organizational capacity of NGOs and community organizations in order to improve the 
quality of living for small-scale farm families. Training in values-based planning and 
management precedes the commitment of funds for livestock and agriculture projects. 
While livestock management remains the focus intervention for Heifer-Bolivia, the 
organization has made a commitment to a more holistic approach to development by 
including environmental protection, agricultural development and marketing. This is a 
defined strategy for 5 years with NGOs and community organizations (97-02) and 
responds to the 1996 Final Evaluation criticism that “HPI is not clear about its role in 
Bolivia and consequently it is not clear about its program strategy.” 
The strategy is to strengthen NGOs that support rural development and to work directly 
with community organizations and their membership. Heifer-Bolivia has worked with 
four Bolivian NGOs and five farmer associations throughout the matching grant period. 
The NGOs (World Concern, Technical University of Beni, the Methodist Church and 
UNAPEGA-National Livestock Association) work directly with farmers in numerous 
rural communities in the Departments of Santa Cruz, La Paz and the Beni. Heifer-Bolivia 
finances institutional strengthening projects with each NGO that is focused on training in 
values-based planning and management. Funding also includes support for livestock 
development projects. 
In addition, Heifer-Bolivia has made a commitment to providing relief to communities 
when it is called for. Severe flooding in the Department of Santa Cruz in recent years 
forced the organization to respond to the immediate relief needs of effected communities. 
Heifer-Bolivia is now committed to continue this practice when necessary. 
A missing piece of the strategy is establishing working relationships with municipalities 
in coverage areas where there is a local governance presence. Bolivia now has a law of 
decentralization and popular participation that is designed to help municipalities develop 
governing capacity and services by channeling funds to them from the national treasury 
and by opening up the political process through greater grassroots participation. Heifer￾Bolivia by its own admission has not taken advantage of these important changes.
Values-based planning and management has resulted in the organization taking on a 
variety of roles and relationships. Heifer-Bolivia functions as a project donor, a direct 
implementer of projects, a coordinating institution, a training group and both a formal 
and informal adviser to individuals, community organizations and NGOs. When an 
organization offers such a diversity of services, it must be clear about when it is wearing 
a particular hat and how that affects a relationship. The capacity to play different roles 
and offer a diversity of services is a strength of the organization. Nevertheless, the roles 
25
can be blurred and need to be clear for Heifer-Bolivia staff, partners and others like 
municipal leaders in order for the organization to continue to be effective in its various 
relationships. 
C. Cornerstones Model
The Heifer-Bolivia strategy for implementing the Cornerstones Model with community 
organizations and NGOs is rooted in indigenous values and a family focus. The 
implementation of the Cornerstones Model does not include the 12 cornerstones. Heifer￾Bolivia maintains that the 12 cornerstones are too general and do not translate well into 
Spanish. Heifer-Bolivia therefore took a different approach based on cultural and 
historical norms. In this, Heifer-Bolivia, participating NGOs and community 
organizations developed their own cornerstones through visioning exercises. These are 
based on Quechua values that are more than five hundred years old and are still widely 
recognized in the country:
· no seas flojo (work hard)
· no seas mentiroso (be honest)
· no seas ladron (honor)
None of these groups with the exception of Heifer-Bolivia have been exposed to HPI’s 12 
cornerstones. However, some of HPI’s cornerstones do end up being included in the 
values that are developed by the NGOs and community organizations.
D. Gender
Gender analysis was first introduced to Heifer-Bolivia and to staff from other countries in 
the region at a HPI headquarters coordinated workshop in Guatemala in 1997. This 
workshop was instrumental in helping to change staff attitudes and practices because it 
included country directors who were required to develop action plans for carrying out 
gender programs in their respective offices. Gender is one of the 12 cornerstones that HPI 
chose to focus on through the matching grant. The Heifer-Bolivia approach to gender 
states that “development is the responsibility of the entire family and if the woman is not 
trained, the process of integrated development is not possible, and sustainability is less 
possible.” On this basis, Heifer-Bolivia uses gender as a common thread for all the 
training it carries out with NGOs and community organizations. Gender is not regarded 
as a program add-on that can be discarded once the matching grant terminates, but is a 
cornerstone that is now an integral part of Heifer-Bolivia programming strategy. This is 
an important step forward in a country that has denied women equal rights for thousands 
of years. 
The organizational commitment to gender starting in Little Rock and taking hold in Latin 
America through workshops and training has had a dramatic impact in Bolivia. Heifer￾Bolivia has fulfilled all the matching grant objectives on the issue of gender and laid a 
framework in the Andean Region for further developing the organizational capacity 
through a close coordination with Heifer offices in Peru and Ecuador. 
Women have access to the decision-making levels of the community organizations and 
attend and participate in all association meetings and are included as officers. Women 
26
sign contracts for livestock with their husbands and participate in livestock management 
and other technical training that previously was only available to men. In turn, husbands 
are taking more responsibility for the management of the household and are participating 
in training that has traditionally been for women. A woman who is now a member of the 
board of the farmers association in her community told me, “Heifer-Bolivia woke me 
up”. 
Cornerstones Model training emphasizes families and the respective roles of men and 
women. It does not attempt to change roles and this is an important distinction in helping 
men and women change attitudes and practices. Most importantly though, the gender 
initiative has been successful in Bolivia because the Director, Roger Hinojosa, believes in 
it and has insisted on it being a basis for all training in order to ensure equity and justice 
in rural communities where Heifer-Bolivia works. 
Heifer-Bolivia hired a sociologist to lead this initiative and it is clear that the staff respect 
each other and work well together regardless of age, profession, gender or experience. 
Heifer-Bolivia has developed a solid capacity for making gender a program reality, but 
must continue to fund the position and further develop its experience and know how. 
Raising the self-confidence and level of participation of women in rural communities 
have been important achievements, but there must be follow-through and follow-up 
(particularly with training) in these same communities and families. Training is essential 
to introducing new ideas and teaching new skills as well as reinforcing what has been 
learned previously. The roles of men and women and the capacities of families in 
challenged rural communities will continue to evolve and require support from 
community organizations, NGOs and Heifer-Bolivia.
E. Impact
Heifer-Bolivia took an aggressive role on this initiative from the beginning. Bradley 
University agreed to work with the three matching grant focus countries in collecting data 
for impact studies. While there was a great deal of confusion and resistance to the impact 
studies among Heifer-Bolivia staff, the Director moved the initiative ahead by hiring a 
local consultant to help them understand the value of the process. 
Heifer-Bolivia was the only country of the three target countries that immediately 
engaged the Bradley group in redesigning the questionnaire to make it more appropriate 
for use in rural Bolivian communities. In addition, the consultant helped educate the staff 
on the impact study process and how it could generate useful information for them, for 
the participating communities and external sources like HPI Little Rock and donors. 
Most importantly, the consultant hired people to collect the data and then managed the 
process. The data was processed locally and analyzed by the consultant with the Heifer￾Bolivia staff. The other target countries sent the data to Bradley and waited for the 
results. Heifer-Bolivia took a more proactive approach and benefited from the process to 
a much greater degree by first understanding the value of the information and analysis 
and then by learning to collect, process and analyze it.
27
The third year of interviewing in three participating communities was completed while 
the evaluation team was in Bolivia. The data will now be processed and analyzed and 
included in a final report from Bradley University. The leader of the Bradley University 
team, Joe Felder, told the evaluators that Heifer-Bolivia made his job easier and lent 
credibility to the overall study because the work was done in a thorough, consistent 
manner. 
Most importantly, Heifer-Bolivia has presented a plan to the HPI Latin America Area 
Director for an ongoing impact evaluation plan for the next five years. This was 
discussed while the evaluators were in Little Rock and could serve as a model for other 
regions where HPI works. 
Several issues that were discussed with the Heifer-Bolivia staff on the impact studies 
have to do with collecting baseline data, control groups and measuring indicators. The 
evaluator made the point that initial cornerstone model training in new communities is an 
ideal time to collect baseline data. There is a captive audience and exercises like a family 
inventory of assets lend themselves to baseline data collection. 
Impact data is more credible if there is a control group. This possibility was explored in 
Bolivia, but not acted upon because of the difficulties in matching communities and 
motivating the control community members to participate. Bradley University 
encouraged the target countries to set up as demographically varied a group as possible in 
lieu of a control group. 
Finally, it was discussed that indicators need to be developed during the planning process 
and these must be related to the values and the vision. This is important for staff and 
project participants so that everyone understands what they have committed to—and to 
ensure that it is measurable and that there is a mechanism for feeding the information 
back to the communities and dealing constructively with the impact. The Heifer-Bolivia 
Strategic Plan for 2000-2001 is further indication of the impact of values-based planning 
and management. 
F. Projects and Project Sustainability
1) Overview
Values-based planning and management can only be successful with a strong training 
base. Heifer-Bolivia has invested a great deal of staff time and matching grant resources 
in the creation of a dynamic training capacity that is regularly evolving-learning from 
past errors while adapting to new realities in rural Bolivian communities. Heifer-Bolivia 
is very clear in its strategy that support for livestock development will remain a constant 
in all of its program activities. The process of developing a training capacity through 
work with rural communities has created a methodology that is focused on communities 
taking responsibility for their own development. 
The Detailed Implementation Plan states that “all HPI supported projects use livestock 
and training as the tools to stimulate group and community development.” Further, “the 
objectives of each project vary according to need, but in general it can be said that all 
28
projects aim to improve the standard of living for small-scale farm families.” Heifer￾Bolivia has made good on this commitment by ensuring the equitable participation of 
men and women and by promoting a more diversified approach to rural development by 
including agriculture and the natural environment. 
2) NGOs
Heifer-Bolivia works with four NGOs. Its work with these four NGOs is reflective of 
how different each organization is and how challenging it is to strengthen the capacity of 
other organizations. The Cornerstones Model is a valuable set of tools for institutional 
strengthening but each organization has to be approached differently and requires 
particular attention. The four NGOs are referred to in Spanish as ‘portadores’, which 
translates as the ‘carrier or bearer’. 
The best established of the NGOs is World Concern, which has a strong training base and 
is philosophically in tune with the HPI approach to working with farmers associations. 
World Concern has worked effectively during the grant period with a woman’s 
community organization in Las Gamas by using values-based planning and management 
to organize and develop the group. The women in the group explained that they were not 
accustomed to taking responsibility for productive activities, other than livestock, and 
had never thought in terms of ‘family welfare’. The women’s group is starting a small 
scale dairy on land that was purchased years ago. The success of the dairy will go a long 
way towards determining the future of the community organization and may well 
determine the future of the community itself. A successful dairy will mean more income 
and new members for the community organization. If the dairy does not succeed, families 
may be motivated to move to the nearby departmental capital of Santa Cruz. The unique 
characteristics of Las Gamas (little land, men leave to work elsewhere, access to city) are 
similar in 3-4 other communities in the area that World Concern and Heifer-Bolivia could 
assess for potential future projects. 
UNAPEGA was created by Heifer-Bolivia in the early 1980’s and has developed a solid 
base of operation in the Department of Santa Cruz. The NGO has survived, but it is still 
struggling to be fully self-sustaining. In addition to Heifer-Bolivia’s training and modest 
financial support to UNAPEGA, the NGO has successfully attracted support from 
European donors for a municipal slaughterhouse that will benefit small farmers. It also 
has funding support from CARE to support honey producers and is involved in an eco￾tourism project. Heifer-Bolivia has provided consistent, effective support to UNAPEGA 
over the years. At the same time UNAPEGA is stretched very thin in terms of staff, 
resources and commitments. Additional Cornerstones Model training needs to be carried 
out with the UNAPEGA staff as it is not clear to what extent they understand and practice 
values-based planning and management. 
I was not able to visit any of the communities where UNAPEGA works with farmers 
associations, we did talk with their staff at length. UNAPEGA now functions as a 
community organization, as a NGO and as a consultant. Multiple roles again can be both 
a strength and a weakness, but UNAPEGA best determines its future by using values-
29
based planning and management. UNAPEGA would also benefit from help on 
identifying new donors and fundraising.
World Concern and UNAPEGA could both benefit from technical assistance for help 
with marketing agricultural products, which is a chronic problem in rural Bolivia. Again, 
Heifer-Bolivia has the resources and can work with these NGOs to strengthen their 
marketing capacity. The challenge is to find appropriate help locally. 
The Methodist Church and the Technical University of Beni present different problems. 
Both operate in other departments and are not readily accessible to Heifer-Bolivia staff. 
For example, two trips a year are made to the Trinidad area where the Technical 
University works. While Heifer-Bolivia has had a close working relationship with the 
Methodist Church since the 1950’s, there are difficulties in coordinating with an 
organization that is experiencing financial problems and is not accessible. It is not clear 
what Heifer-Bolivia expects from these relationships, nor how sustainable institution 
building is from afar. At the same time, both relationships represent risk-taking and 
present different challenges for Heifer-Bolivia staff. 
Institutional strengthening requires a close, dynamic relationship between the 
organization and the NGO. This is geographically not possible with the Technical 
University and the Methodist Church. Heifer-Bolivia should continue to follow its 
strategies in working with these organizations through the committed period of 2002 and 
learn from the experiences to shape future institutional building programs. One NGO 
representative told me that he values the training and of course the financial support, but 
he most appreciates the informal support from Heifer—Bolivia-the strategizing, problem 
solving and advice. 
2) Farmers Associations
The five farmers associations have benefited from working with Heifer-Bolivia These 
associations (San Julian, El Chore, Yucumo, Berlin & Alto Beni) function as umbrella 
groups for particular geographic areas-each one includes a number of different 
communities. Training the leadership (made up of leaders from the different 
communities) of the umbrella association serves to tap into the interest and potential in 
each community. The structure also allows the umbrella association to take direct 
responsibility for training and project administration in a phased approach. 
The implementation of the Cornerstones Model with the farmers associations has helped 
Heifer-Bolivia evolve into an organization that promotes a broader approach to rural 
development while continuing to focus on livestock management as a mainstay. Again, 
this is a natural progression for any organization or country office that understands and 
embraces values-based planning and management as designed by HPI. 
Heifer-Bolivia has developed credibility for its presence and continuing support of rural 
communities in the Department of Santa Cruz over the last 40 years. I was told by several 
small farmers that most organizations come and make promises and then move on after 
several years—Heifer-Bolivia has always been there. The organization has long term 
30
relationships with some communities in the Department of Santa Cruz that go back as far 
as 20 years or more. In some cases, support for these communities is now channeled 
through NGOs and not provided directly. Nevertheless, these relationships do raise a 
question of how long Heifer-Bolivia should continue to invest resources in a community 
(or through an NGO) and the cost-effectiveness of providing long term support. 
Numerous trainings in values-based planning and management have been carried out by 
Heifer-Bolivia staff with NGOs and community organizations. While the training has had 
an impact on these organizations, the issue of measuring the impact of institutional 
strengthening is still unresolved. Heifer-Bolivia could benefit from HPI assistance on this 
issue.
G. Staffing and Support from Headquarters
Heifer-Bolivia benefits from a staff that combines a variety of ages, gender and 
experience. The present group could benefit from the addition of a production/marketing 
specialist. This could be done immediately for the short run by using the technical 
services funds allocated under the matching grant. Staff have taken advantage of HPI 
training in the region during the matching grant period and should continue to look for 
opportunities external to the organization.
The AID funds pay for the Training Coordinator and 20% of the salaries of the following 
positions:
Dr. Roger Hinojosa-National Director (veterinarian)
Carlos Tello-Administrator/Accountant
Carlos Aramayo-Trainer (agronomist)
Delia Barral-Field Worker (food technician)
Raul Contreras-Field Worker (ag. technician)
Denyse Caballero-Gender Coordinator (sociologist)
Fabiola Ortiz-Secretary
Heifer-Bolivia has benefited from the regular management support of the Latin 
America/Caribbean Region Area Director Jim Hoey. Mr. Hoey was supportive of 
Bolivia’s participation in this and the previous matching grant. In addition, he has 
promoted regional coordination of values-based planning and management and the idea 
that HPI country offices have a great deal to learn from each other’s experiences. 
The HPI Gender Coordinator, Beth Miller, planned and facilitated the 1997 Gender 
workshop in Guatemala that included key staff from all of the HPI countries in Latin 
America. This workshop served to introduce values-based planning and management to 
countries throughout Latin America. 
Mr. Jerry Aaker, Director of Training and the Matching Grant Manager, helped facilitate 
the Cornerstone Model Dialogue that included representatives of Bolivia, Indonesia and 
Zimbabwe along with Ecuador and Peru in May 2000. Other headquarters support has 
been provided on a consistent basis by the Finance Department and the Program 
31
Assistant for Latin America. Clearly, HPI headquarters has taken this commitment 
seriously and provided support throughout the grant period.
H. Finance and Administration
Financial management and reporting on matching grant funds is another successful 
activity of Heifer-Bolivia. Spending on grant funds (both AID, HPI) is on track for the 
original termination date of September 30 with the exception of the technical or 
contracted services line item. As of the end of June 2000, Heifer-Bolivia had exceeded 
the HPI and was under-spent in the AID portion of the budget by $90,000 according to 
the HPI Finance Department in Little Rock. There is not enough detail in the financial 
reports provided by HPI Finance Department to determine how the line items break 
down, but apparently spending on project grants has exceeded budget. 
Heifer-Bolivia prepares and sends matching grant financial reports to Little Rock every 6 
months. The HPI staff in Little Rock lauded Heifer-Bolivia for its timely, accurate and 
thorough reporting. 
Heifer-Bolivia is included in the annual A-133 audit of the matching grant conducted in 
Little Rock. In addition, the country office submits to a local audit annually. The 
financial manager for Heifer-Bolivia is experienced and is well versed in AID 
regulations. He also participates in field training of farmers associations and has 
developed a simple curriculum on how community organizations and households can do 
their own budgeting. 
The matching grant provided Heifer-Bolivia with the financial backing (both AID and 
HPI monies) to fully respond to the recommendations of the 1996 final evaluation. The 
strong economic position of HPI has also contributed to an improved operating climate 
and will allow Heifer-Bolivia to continue the activities of the matching grant for the next 
two years. 
Heifer-Bolivia does no independent fundraising and has not had to during the course of 
the matching grant. The organization does have a solid track record and great potential 
for raising funds in Bolivia. This is an important consideration for the future.
I. Response to 1996 Final Evaluation Recommendations
The 1996 Final Evaluation of the Training Matching Grant offered a number of 
recommendations for how Heifer-Bolivia could improve its program strategies and 
training capacity. (See Attachment 2: Summary Recommendations) Indeed the 
Cornerstones Model Matching Grant is based upon the recommendations from 1996 and 
most of these have been acted upon. The result is that Heifer-Bolivia is a stronger 
organization today than it was in 1996. 
The implementation of values-based planning and management forced Heifer-Bolivia to 
strengthen its own capacity as an organization before engaging other organizations-it has 
learned to practice what it preaches. With respect to program strategy, Heifer-Bolivia has 
engaged in annual strategic planning that has served to better define the role(s) of the 
32
organization. It has also served to put more rigor into the project development process 
with NGOs and community organizations. 
One of the Heifer-Bolivia achievements with the help of the matching grant is the 
development of a viable training capacity. This has been done by bolstering the staff 
(added a training director and gender specialist positions) and involving the entire staff in 
planning and implementing training. The result is that a dynamic internal process has 
been created that ties all staff to the core business of the organization. The training 
capacity of Heifer-Bolivia includes the development of numerous tools, exercises and 
guides that are regularly improved upon with each new training experience. Training is 
participatory, it includes men and women, it is cost-effective and it respects local customs 
and know how. 
Heifer-Bolivia combined its strong base of experience with matching grant funds and the 
Cornerstone Model training and methodologies to transform its operation. While Heifer￾Bolivia has made tremendous strides forward and responded positively to the majority of 
the 1996 recommendations, three years is a short period of time in which to transform an 
organization. By its own admission, Heifer-Bolivia has initiated or put in motion a 
number of initiatives that will require more time to develop. These include:
· learning network with the participating NGOs that will develop a closer 
working relationship while reinforcing values-based planning and 
management skills
· regional coordination with HPI Ecuador and Peru to further strengthen 
the gender and impact initiatives
· further develop a useful system of evaluation with measurable indicators
· increase staff size and expand the office
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Heifer-Bolivia has worked hard since the 1996 evaluation to address its shortcomings by 
responding to the recommendations of the ‘Final Evaluation’. Two recommendations 
were not adequately addressed by Heifer-Bolivia during the current matching grant 
period and are repeated in this report. (See Recommendation #1 and #2)
Strategy
1. Criteria for working with NGOs: Heifer-Bolivia’s work with grassroots organizations 
is strong, whereas its work with NGOs is weak. If Heifer-Bolivia is serious about 
maximizing its impact by working with NGOs, it must develop a clear strategy for 
doing this. Consideration should be given to the accessibility of the NGO to Heifer￾Bolivia staff. If it is decided to work with NGOs in other areas of the country, then a 
staff person must be committed to living and working in that same area. 
2. Exit strategy for NGOs: Heifer-Bolivia has not clearly articulated and applied the 
criteria for determining when a project should be phased out. While Heifer-Bolivia 
intentionally maintains long-term relationships with its project holders, it must 
33
develop a set of criteria and strategy for phase-out of a project. Among other things, 
this will help Heifer-Bolivia to be clear about its organizational (grassroots and NGO) 
development objectives. It will also help Heifer-Bolivia spread and maximize its 
limited resources. 
3. Consolidate/strengthen Heifer-Bolivia capacity: Given its strong performance during 
this grant period with community based organizations and mixed performance with 
NGOs, Heifer-Bolivia should continue to strengthen its capacity in utilizing the 
Cornerstones Model to build the capacity of partners. Funding support to existing 
matching grant projects has been committed by HPI headquarters through 2002, 
which allows Heifer-Bolivia to concentrate on the following:
· coordination with HP Ecuador and Peru in furthering the learning network 
created during this matching grant
· develop internal capacity to design new projects and secure funding (this 
includes headquarters support for developing a fundraising capacity in 
Bolivia)
· new project activity should be limited to existing coverage areas for the 
next two years
4. Develop relationships with municipal governments: HPI should follow its own 
strategy of developing relationships with municipal governments in coverage areas. 
In turn, NGOs and community organizations should be encouraged to develop their 
own relationships with municipalities through training, participation in elections and 
attendance at meetings
Projects
5. Animal credit adjustments: Heifer-Bolivia requires that the loan of an animal to a 
family be preceded by a contract signed by both the husband and wife along with the 
board members of the farmers association. This is called an animal credit program but 
Heifer-Bolivia does not keep records on the status of the animals over time other than 
passing on the gift to another farmer or the death of an animal. If the animal is not 
passed on, for whatever reason, there is no accounting for delinquencies.
· Heifer-Bolivia should be clear about the repayment rate on all loans of 
animals or materials as a part of its internal accountability and as a 
measurement of impact for farmers associations. 
· There is also no accounting for the ultimate status of an animal. It is 
recommended that the gift ultimately become the property of the farmer’s 
association as a means of fortifying its assets. 
6. Technical assistance: Heifer-Bolivia has a balance of approximately $30,000 for 
technical services and should use these funds to hire a marketing specialist through 
the end of the no cost extension period. Heifer-Bolivia, NGOs and community based 
organizations all expressed the need for help in marketing. Bolivia is a special case 
due to small markets, cheap-illegal imports and local competition. Other potential 
uses of these funds:
· recruit and short term hire of technical consultants who could potentially 
work as full-time employees
· new impact studies/continuation of existing data collection in 3 
communities
34
· establish a web page for Latin American countries in Bolivia that includes 
numerous documents, training materials, impact studies analysis etc.
7. Involve youth in projects: Rural communities where Heifer-Bolivia and NGO partners 
work have a lack of land and opportunities for future generations. The youth in these 
communities often live in larger cities to study and ultimately to work. The future of 
these communities are tenuous. It is recommended that Heifer-Bolivia explore 
options for involving the youth of the communities in the community organization 
and the projects.
Impact
8. Share impact data/analysis with NGOs and community organizations: Heifer-Bolivia 
has successfully collected and analyzed impact data but has not yet shared the 
information with participating communities. Now that the matching grant period is 
concluding and the data has been collected and analyzed, it is necessary to share the 
information by developing a plan and timetable to do this.
Administration
9. More documentation: Documentation of project activities is well done and complete. 
Heifer-Bolivia should write-up two other documents for dissemination to other 
countries. The first is a lessons learned paper from three years of experience 
implementing the values-based planning and management approach. The second is a 
short paper on grant management from a country office perspective that could be 
useful to other country offices and to HPI headquarters Program Assistants. 
35
ATTACHMENT 1: EVALUATION ITINERARY
July 16 Arrival in Santa Cruz-meet staff over dinner
July 17- Initial briefing session with entire Heifer Bolivia staff and representatives 
from World Concern and UNAPEGA; review of documents
July 18 Visit to rural community where World Concern implements values based
planning and management with Heifer Bolivia funding and training
support-Las Gamas
July 19 Review and analysis of Las Gamas visit; leave for El Chore in the PM;
0vernight in Santa Rosa del Sarah
July 20 Visit to community organization-Region El Chore-Community Cuatro de
Marzo (included representatives and community members from 4
communities in the region)
July 21 Visit to offices and different programs en Yapacani of Union Nacional de 
Productores Agropecuarios Integrales (UNAPEGA)
July 22-Return to Santa Cruz-review of visits and preparation of
conclusions/recommendations
July 24-25 Analysis and review of Cornerstone Model matching grant program with
Heifer-Bolivia staff and representatives from NGOs, community
organizations and Heifer Headquarters, Ecuador and Peru
July 26 Return to United States
36
ATTACHMENT 2: SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 1996 FINAL 
EVALUATION OF HEIFER-BOLIVIA PROGRAM
1. Field programs face major challenges (small business development, sustainable ag, 
environment) and issues of institutional strengthening. Recommend: Hire more staff 
with expertise in these areas. 
2. Need strategic vision and plans to proactively address newly emerging needs, either 
directly or through links with other organizations. 
3. Work with grassroots organizations is strong, but weak with NGOs. Recommend: To 
maximize impact by working with NGOs, must develop a clear strategy for 
institutional strengthening of partners. 
4. No clear criteria for project phase out. Recommend: HPI should develop a set of 
criteria and strategy for phase-out. This will help spread and maximize limited 
resources.
5. The current training model/resource book is too culture and site specific to have 
maximum impact on global programs. Recommend: Put greater emphasis on peer 
sharing of participatory training materials and approaches through regional or 
worldwide field-based workshops. 
6. No measurement of impact of this grant. Recommend: In short term, conduct several 
case studies in Uganda and Bolivia. In long term, develop a monitoring and 
evaluation system for measuring the impact of projects on nutrition and income.
7. Some movement in gender in programs, but needs to be emphasized more. 
Recommend: A long term strategy that emphasizes the inclusion of gender issues in 
the early stages of project development and strong follow-up. 
37
ATTACHMENT 3: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
1) Informe Anual-Cornerstone Grant Oct. 1-Sept. 30, 1998
2) Strategic Plan: Bolivia-July 1999 
3) Segundo Informe Anual-Cornerstone Grant, August 1999
4) Building Capacity Through the Cornerstone Model-Matching Grant Report for
USAID, Second Annual Report, October 1 through September 30, 1999
5) Memoria del Taller: Seguimiento a La Planificación Basada en Valores De La
Asociación Local de 4 de Marzo, 16 de Mayo, 2000, El Chore, Santa Cruz
6) International Encounter on the Application of the Cornerstones Model in Zimbabwe,
Indonesia and Bolivia, May 28-June 2, 2000, Santa Cruz
7) Memoria de la Reunion-Dialogo Sobre La Aplicación del Modelo de Los
Fundamentos en Bolivia, Indonesia y Zimbabwe, 28 de Mayo al 2 de Junio, 2000,
Santa Cruz
8) Bolivia USAID Matching Grant Cornerstones Workshop Trip Report, April 28-May 
3, 2000, by Dan Gudahl, HPI Africa Area Director
9) The Cornerstone Model Dialogue Draft Summary, May 28-June 2, 2000, by Jerry 
Aaker, Santa Cruz. 
10) The History of HPI in Bolivia, June 21, 2000
11) Focus on Gender in HPI-Bolivia Projects, June 27, 2000, Santa Cruz
12) Tercer Informe Annual-Cornerstone Grant, 1 de octubre de 1999 al 30 de septiembre 
de 2000
13) Evaluación en Base Al Plan De Accion Del Plan Estratégico
14) Plan Detallado de la Implementacion del Cornerstone Grant Octubre de 1997-
Septiembre de 2000
15) Informe Evaluativo Sobre El Cornerstone Grant en Bolivia (Septiembre de 1997-Julio 
del 2000) 
16) Esquema de Planificación Estrategica 2000-2001
17) Contrato de Credito en Animales (ejemplar)
18) Presupuesto Training Grant Septiembre 1997-Agosto 2000
19) Análisis Global Del Presupuesto Aprobado Para Bolivia, Octubre 1997-2000
20) Informe Economico Global, Octubre 1997-2000
21) Informe Del Numero De Bovinos Comprados Que Han Sido Entregados en Berlin, 
Yucumo, San Julian, El Chore
22) Executive Summary: Cornerstones and Impacts-Reviewing some of the Cornerstones 
with priority for the partners of Heifer Bolivia, Elisabeth-Maria Huba-Mang, August 
2000 
38
INDONESIA COUNTRY REPORT
I.INTRODUCTION
HPI has supported livestock projects with NGOs in Indonesia since the early 1980s. Up 
until 1996, project oversight was conducted from HPI headquarters in Little Rock. In 
1996, HPI began the process of consolidating its work in Indonesia into a unified country 
program with a field office and representatives for Heifer-Indonesia. To facilitate this 
process, HPI contracted on a part-time basis the services of Kate Gieger, the former 
director of HPI’s Philippines program and one of the founders of Jasa KATOM, an 
Indonesian consulting organization. The first year was devoted to defining the Heifer￾Indonesia program—its geographical scope and identifying potential local NGOs as 
“partner” organizations—and to exploring funding potential and resources. In 1997, HPI 
submitted a matching grant proposal (entitled “Building Capacity through the 
Cornerstones Model”) to USAID that included Indonesia as one of the three focal 
countries. With USAID’s approval of this grant and its implementation, starting in 
October 1997, Heifer-Indonesia was provided with the additional resources needed to 
expand the staff and promote the program. This matching grant has, therefore, made it 
possible for a brand new country office and program to be initiated.
Currently, Heifer-Indonesia is staffed through a sub-contractual arrangement5
 with Jasa 
KATOM and the office is along the home of the Jasa KATOM consultants in Bukittinggi, 
Sumatra. This arrangement provided Heifer-Indonesia with an easy entry into the country 
and makes it one of the few HPI country programs to be run by expatriate staff. There 
has, however, been some discussion about attempting to register Heifer-Indonesia with 
the Government of Indonesia as local organization in the future. The Heifer-Indonesia 
program is headed by two Co-Country Representatives—Kate Gieger at 50% of her time 
and Tom Dierolf, co-founder of Jasa KATOM, who until January 2000 was working at 
50% of his time and is now providing 100% of his time to Heifer-Indonesia. 
Additionally, there are two Indonesian field staff—a Program Assistant (Abdul Syam 
Mahyudin) who has a background in anthropology and NGO work and a Technical 
Veterinary Assistant (Silfi Ganda Kesuma) who is a trained veterinarian. The program is 
also supported by a part-time Financial and Administrative Assistant6—Febrianti—who 
has been trained to take on bookkeeping responsibilities.
The Heifer-Indonesia program, which currently covers 8 provinces in Sumatra7
, uses a 
different strategy than most of HPI’s other programs worldwide A fundamental part of 
this strategy is to work with communities through NGOs rather than working directly 
with the communities themselves. As a result of this strategic orientation, Heifer￾Indonesia places a considerable emphasis on the quality of the relationships it develops 
 
5
 This sub-contractual arrangement with a local organization is the first of its kind for HPI.
6
 Heifer-Indonesia’s part-time secretary was promoted to this position on August 1st, 2000.
7
 At the outset of this grant, Heifer-Indonesia inherited two projects previously funded by HPI—one in 
Sumatra and one in Java—which were supported until 1999. While considered part of the program, both 
projects fell outside of Heifer-Indonesia’s current strategy. Under this current strategy, there is no 
significant ongoing relationship with the NGO based in Java and the NGO based in Sumatra has been 
invited to participate in the Learning Community and the impact studies. 
39
with local NGOs and on building their capacity to become self-sustaining organizations. 
To this end, Heifer-Indonesia has facilitated the creation of a loose affiliation of local 
NGOs compatible with Heifer-Indonesia’s vision and interests, called the Learning 
Community (LC). The LC provides a forum for the sharing of ideas, networking and 
building institutional capacity. Heifer-Indonesia also provides training and support 
services, which contribute to capacity-building, to NGOs that are not members of the LC. 
Capacity-building efforts have recently culminated in Heifer-Indonesia funding the first 
new projects over the three-year grant period. The project holders of these four livestock 
projects are two LC member NGOs.
II. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The core evaluation team consisted of Jane Yudelman, an external evaluator; Jennifer 
Shumaker, the former HPI Director of Evaluation and HPI representative overseeing the 
evaluation of the matching grant; and Rienzzie Kern, the newly appointed HPI Director 
of Planning and Evaluation. The core team was also joined by Tom Dierolf, (Co-Country 
Representative), and Abdul Syam Mahyudin (Program Assistant) and Silfi Ganda 
Kesuma (Technical Veterinary Assistant), both of whom provided translation support. 
Prior and subsequent to the field work, discussions were held with Heifer-Indonesia staff 
concerning the impact that the grant has had on the program, major achievements, 
problem areas, financial status and future directions. During the field portion of this 
evaluation, a total of ten NGOs were interviewed. (See Attachment 1 for Evaluation 
Itinerary.) These 10 NGOs represented a mixture of LC member NGOs and NGOs 
participating in Heifer-Indonesia activities independent of LC status8
. Included amongst 
the LC member NGOs were the two NGOs that have received project funding under this 
grant to work with two community organizations (CO) each. All four COs and their 
respective livestock activities (two cattle, one fish and one water buffalo) were visited. 
Additionally, the team visited two communities in which the Bradley Impact Studies 
were being conducted.
Discussions at both the NGO and community-level were guided by the discussion 
questions developed collectively by Curt Schaeffer, Rienzzie Kern and Jane Yudelman in 
the USA prior to the start of the country-level evaluations. However, given the fact that 
the Heifer-Indonesia’s program is somewhat different from those of Bolivia and 
Zimbabwe, it was necessary to adapt the questions to fit the context. Interviewing of 
NGOs, which was led by the core team, therefore focused on the following areas: Heifer￾Indonesia’s strategy and role, the LC, the Cornerstones Model, gender and future 
directions. For the final interview the two Heifer-Indonesia field staff led the discussions 
with the core team providing support, when and as needed. This shift was proposed since 
one of the expectations voiced at the outset of the evaluation process was that the staff 
would learn about evaluation. This opportunity provided the field staff with hands-on 
 
8
 Of the ten NGOs, seven were Learning Community members and three were not members. Of the six 
Learning Community members, two were project holders and of the four non-members, one was involved 
in gathering information for the impact studies.
40
experience of conducting evaluation interviews and was supplemented later with 
discussions about evaluation in general.
Community-level meetings started with the community presenting its outputs from the 
Cornerstones Model planning process. Two groups were then formed, with Rienzzie 
Kern and Jennifer Shumaker leading the discussion with one and Jane Yudelman the 
discussion with the other. These smaller groups provided a greater opportunity for 
participation by community members. While one group focused on gender issues and the 
other on the relationship of the project holder NGO to the CO, further discussions on the 
Cornerstones Model, Passing on the Gift, training and other technical aspects were also 
included. Additional interviews were conducted at individual homes (about six per 
community) and visits made to the relevant animals. After each day’s activities the entire 
team sat together to update the Co-Country Representative, who only attended the 
community-level meetings, and discuss what had been observed. 
On returning to Bukittinggi, the core team met and developed draft country-level 
conclusions and recommendations based on the activities undertaken over the previous 
three years. These were presented to the Heifer-Indonesia staff in a workshop setting, 
who was, in turn, provided an opportunity to respond to the recommendations. 
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
While the general thrust of this matching grant has been on the institutionalization of the 
Cornerstones Model, increasing gender awareness and focus in programming, developing 
systems for measuring impact, and the funding of projects, it is important to view these in 
light of the overall program strategy that frames the implementation of the matching 
grant. This is particularly important in the case of Heifer-Indonesia where strategy and 
focus depart significantly from HPI’s other programs worldwide.
This section starts with a summary of the progress made towards meeting the objectives 
and then is followed by a more in depth discussion of the findings and conclusions, 
presented in the following order: strategic considerations, the institutionalization of the 
Cornerstones Model, gender training and related issues, measuring impact, project 
implementation, staffing and headquarters’ support issues, and financial reporting and 
status of grant-related expenses. Recommendations are presented at the end of the report. 
A. Progress Towards Meeting the Country-specific Objectives of the Matching 
Grant: A Summary
The Detailed Implementation Plan for the matching grant identified 5 general objectives 
for the Indonesia program. The table below reviews these objectives and indicates the 
extent to which they have been achieved. Before proceeding, it is important to note two 
facts. Firstly, the objectives are ambitious for a brand new country office and program. 
Secondly, the table presents a rough sketch of achievements and does not capture the 
more qualitative aspects of the Indonesia program, which are addressed in the remainder 
of the report.
41
Objectives Status and Comments
1. Produce local manuals in Bahasa 
Indonesia for training
· Three manuals have been translated into Bahasa 
Indonesia and sold/distributed
2 Conduct 4 impact studies in Indonesia 
and other Asian countries
· Of the 6 surveys needed to complete the impact study 
in Indonesia, 4 have been completed and it is 
anticipated that the 5th will be completed within the 
no-cost extension
3 Strengthen eight NGO partner 
organizations for sustainable 
development programs
· Heifer-Indonesia has provided training to the 22 
NGOs in the LC and a number of non-member NGOs, 
which implies a degree of strengthening. However, the 
program lacks indicators for measuring 
“strengthening” or “capacity-building”, which makes 
it difficult to objectively assess the true progress in 
this area.
4 600 families benefit directly in HPI 
funded projects
· In the two projects funded prior to the establishment 
of HP/IA, 2509
 families benefited. This includes 
families who received the originally placed and the 
pass-on animals.
· Under Heifer-Indonesia’s new strategy, funding of 
projects has only recently begun. Forty-eight families 
are participating in these new projects. These families 
have benefited from receiving training and an infusion 
of capital (in the form of animals), but given the 
newness of the projects it is not possible to assess the 
benefits that could accrue when the projects reach 
maturity.
· Combining the figures from both the old and the new 
projects, a total of 298 families may have benefited 
from the projects.
· To facilitate the measurement of impact in the future, 
Heifer-Indonesia recently began to introduce a simple 
system for measuring community level impact. It has 
also begun the process of developing a comprehensive 
monitoring and evaluation system for the entire 
program. In the future, both of these systems should 
help Heifer-Indonesia to track those who “benefit”.
 
9
 This figure is taken from the second annual report (1 October, 1998-30 September, 1999) of the matching 
grant and therefore does not include animals that might have been passed on during the final year of the 
grant.
42
Objectives Status and Comments
5 Train 640 project participants · Exact figures are not available, but in the two projects 
funded prior to the establishment of HP/IA, it is 
estimated that hundreds of families have benefited 
from training. 
· Under Heifer-Indonesia’s new strategy, Heifer￾Indonesia usually does not provide training directly to 
project participants Heifer-Indonesia trains the project 
holders who in turn train the project participants. The 
exact number of project participants trained by the 
project holders is not available. However, since there 
currently 48 families participating, this number can be 
estimated about 9610 if both the husband and wife 
attended training. If the future pass-on families were 
included in the training then the figure could be 
higher.
· Heifer-Indonesia has begun the process of developing 
a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system 
for the entire program, which may capture this type of 
measurement in the future. 
B. Heifer-Indonesia’s Strategy and Strategic Considerations
1) The Strategy
Heifer-Indonesia has been given both space and encouragement to explore a different 
strategy and model for working with NGOs and, ultimately, communities. Given the 
newness of the approach adopted to both HPI as a whole and to the Heifer-Indonesia 
staff, the program has been shifting and evolving as the Heifer-Indonesia staff gain 
greater understanding of the NGO context and their development philosophy, and 
becomes more adept in their own training skills and use of tools and processes that it 
promotes. The staff clearly put a great deal of thought into every step and have produced 
thought-provoking documents that both inform and challenge certain aspects of the way 
HPI as an organization works. Having said that, it is important to realize that this is 
clearly a program in evolution with more strategic thought needing to be given to its 
capacity-building mission. 
Heifer-Indonesia describes its program as having two components. These are 
Building Institutional Capacity (BiC) and Sustainable Mixed Agriculture-Livestock 
Livelihoods (SMALL). The BiC component largely consists of the activities undertaken 
to support the development of the LC (see #3 “Partnerships—The Learning Community”) 
and the SMALL component encompasses the agriculture and livestock-related activities 
that Heifer-Indonesia undertakes independent of the LC, but which may include LC 
member participation. It is through this component that livestock projects can be funded.
 
10 HPI has trained 600 families in composting with funding from a different source. HPI believes that this 
training would not have been possible without the support from the matching grant to build NGO 
relationships and staff capacities.
43
As described, there appears to be a degree of overlap between the activities undertaken in 
the BiC and the SMALL, making the distinction between the two components a little 
unclear to the outside observer. Discussions with NGOs also revealed that they do not 
understand the different roles that Heifer-Indonesia wants to take on in different contexts. 
Heifer-Indonesia staff also confirmed this observation—that the NGOs are not clear 
about the organization’s roles and functions. The situation is perhaps further complicated 
by the fact that Heifer-Indonesia itself wants to distance itself as a funding agency when 
working with the LC—here it describes itself as an “equal learning partner”, while 
coordinating and funding most of the LC activities—when in reality HPI does fund 
projects and Heifer-Indonesia has, in fact, funded projects developed by 311 LC members. 
NGOs, on the other hand, definitely view Heifer-Indonesia as a potential source of funds 
for livestock-related activities. Heifer-Indonesia needs to embrace its funding identity 
more fully and use it to support its capacity-building agenda.
2) Guiding Principles
Heifer-Indonesia’s approach and strategy is framed by a number of key principles, which 
have direct bearing on how the program is implemented. The first of these is “praxis”—
which Heifer-Indonesia translates as learning how to do something through practical, 
hands-on experience before teaching it to others. (By way of example, Heifer-Indonesia, 
before talking to NGOs about applying the Cornerstones Model for strategic planning at 
the organizational level, used the Cornerstones Model to develop its own strategic plan.) 
Applying this principle has afforded Heifer-Indonesia staff to become very familiar with 
the practicalities of a particular approach or tool, thus building its skills and credibility in 
certain areas both with its partner NGOs and within the HPI world. Its application, 
however, has slowed the pace of the program’s development to speed at which Heifer￾Indonesia builds its own skills in key areas. This raises the question of whether or not it is 
the most appropriate approach for a brand new office that is starting more or less from 
ground zero and has been committed to certain objectives under the matching grant. 
The second key principle is that of participation. Heifer-Indonesia is trying to promote a 
truly participatory approach in its work with NGOs. The manner in which the 
participatory approach is translated has direct bearing on Heifer-Indonesia central theme, 
that of building capacity. In its work with NGOs, Heifer-Indonesia is reticent to suggest 
possible support that it could provide to the NGOs for fear that this will subvert the 
participatory process. Rather, it chooses to “advertise” its services broadly and wait for 
NGOs to request assistance, follow-on support, or additional training. For the most part, 
the NGOs have not taken advantage of the follow-on assistance and services that Heifer￾Indonesia can provide. To overcome this, Heifer-Indonesia needs to be more proactive 
with the NGOs, especially while it is building the program. This means spending more 
time with the NGOs, learning what follow-on support they might need and together 
developing a plan of action for providing or facilitating the provision of certain services. 
This is an important part of the capacity-building process—helping NGOs to identify 
their individual needs and plan ways to address them—and as NGOs become more aware 
 
11 Two LC NGOs received funding for projects developed under the current Heifer-Indonesia strategy and 
one LC NGO received follow-on funding for initiatives developed prior to the establishment of Heifer￾Indonesia. 
44
of their own capacity-building needs and the services that Heifer-Indonesia can offer, 
they themselves will become more proactive and begin to approach Heifer-Indonesia for 
assistance.
The third principle is that “the unit of development is the organization and not the 
project.” Heifer-Indonesia has translated this to mean that NGOs (especially those in the 
LC) should enter into a relationship with Heifer-Indonesia not motivated by funding, but 
rather by the opportunity to develop their capacities and skills. When NGOs did mention 
their interest in receiving funds, Heifer-Indonesia staff classified them as being “too 
project-focused”. Firstly, it is unrealistic to expect these smaller, less organizationally 
mature and less solvent NGOs—the very focus of Heifer-Indonesia’s capacity-building 
endeavors—not look towards funding opportunities, both to support their work in 
communities and to cover some operational costs. Without some funding base, 
organizations usually do not survive. Secondly, the way this principle is translated does 
not recognize the interaction between project funding and building the capacity of an 
NGO. NGOs need project activities around which to build their capacities, skills and 
credibility. Without these opportunities training becomes training for the sake of training. 
It is through a combination of training and funding more training that capacity-building 
of small NGOs is most effective. To fit a capacity-building agenda, funds could be 
contingent on receiving basic training and might be provided incrementally to 
participating NGOs based on the level of capacity. Additionally, the funded activities 
could provide Heifer-Indonesia with an opportunity to assess a wide range of NGO 
capacity-building needs and develop a strategy to address these.
3) Partnerships—The Learning Community (LC)
Heifer-Indonesia’s main approach to building partnerships is through the LC, which 
consists of 22 local NGOs plus Heifer-Indonesia. The LC was formed by Heifer￾Indonesia during the early stages of its program development and was seen as a low cost, 
low risk way to begin to develop partnerships. Most of the members are small NGOs (of 
varying degrees of capacity and skills) with visions and interests compatible with those of 
Heifer-Indonesia. The LC provides a forum for NGOs to share, network, learn and 
strengthen their capacity. To date, there have been two Annual Learning Community 
Consultations (ALCC), with the next scheduled for November 2000, and four regional 
LC meetings. LC members have also been able to come together to discuss LC-related 
issues after attending training events supported by Heifer-Indonesia. All LC member 
organizations have been trained in the Cornerstones Model and most have attended 
training on gender. Additionally, with the guidance of Heifer-Indonesia, the LC has been 
using the Cornerstones Model to identify its own vision and shape its strategic plan and 
future directions. LC working groups, consisting of LC members and one Heifer￾Indonesia staff, have been formed to develop a module for implementing the 
Cornerstones Model with COs, to develop a module on gender, and to draft operational 
principles (including a formalizing the organizational structure, and defining rules, 
regulations and fees for membership) for the LC.
Heifer-Indonesia fulfills a number of roles in the LC. It funds the costs associated with 
running the LC, which include administration, transportation to and from meetings, and 
45
any LC activities. It oversees the activities—such as the working groups described 
above—of the LC. It promotes capacity-building largely through training to LC members 
and it acts as an equal learning partner in the LC. 
From this evaluation it is clear that the LC is greatly appreciated in the NGO 
community—both by those NGOs that are members and by those that are not members—
although the purpose of the LC as articulated by Heifer-Indonesia was not fully 
understood. When asked to explain the purpose of the LC, very few NGOs mentioned 
capacity-building, several mentioned learning from each other, most mentioned 
networking and almost all (members and non-members NGOs) mentioned LC 
membership as way of enhancing access to Heifer-Indonesia project funding and/or 
training despite the fact that this is not Heifer-Indonesia’s stated policy. All of the non￾member NGOs interviewed wanted to become members and in general there was a call 
for clearer guidelines on membership qualification and membership termination. All but 
one NGO indicated that they would be willing to pay a membership fee in the future and 
believed with proper guidance, NGO members and funds, the LC could evolve into a 
network independent of Heifer-Indonesia support in the future. 
The concept of a learning community is good one and even though there is some 
confusion about its real purpose, NGOs do value it and the work that Heifer-Indonesia 
has put into it. Heifer-Indonesia should build on this and develop a strategy for enhancing 
its learning dimension, whether or not it decides to intertwine funding more closely to the 
capacity-building efforts. One way to do this would be to promote thematic learning 
groups based on interest and needs amongst the members. For example, those members 
interested in delving deeper into the practicalities of applying the Cornerstones Model 
might meet independently from the whole LC for this purpose and report back to the LC 
during the annual meeting. Similarly, members interested in learning more about a range 
of topics such as fundraising, environment, livestock management, and project 
management might form other thematic learning groups, inviting external resource 
people according to the purpose of the group. Such an approach would address the 
varying interests of the membership, increase the learning opportunities and build 
capacities of members potentially to the point where they can act as resources to other 
member and non-member NGOs in specified areas.
4) Other Program Services and Activities
In addition to working with the LC for the LC, Heifer-Indonesia is poised to provide 
training, technical support and project funding to individual LC members and to NGOs 
that fall outside of the LC. To date, Heifer-Indonesia has provided training in the 
Cornerstones Model, gender awareness and gender analysis, training of trainers (TOT) in 
Popular Education, animal husbandry, para-veterinary services, and composting to LC 
and non-LC members.
The Cornerstones Model and gender training are discussed in detail in Sections C and D 
respectively. All of the remaining topics mentioned above have proven to be useful to the 
NGOs and COs. Of these, the training in Popular Education appears to have had the 
greatest impact on the way Heifer-Indonesia implements its program. Heifer-Indonesia 
46
staff was all trained in Popular Education techniques by Susan Stewart, who developed 
and completed the manual entitled “Learning Together: The Agricultural Worker’s 
Participatory Sourcebook”, the development of which was partially funded under HPI’s 
previous matching grant. Heifer-Indonesia has since adopted the Popular Education 
approach and techniques in all of the training that it offers, and in its facilitation of LC 
meetings. Moreover, it has also replicated the Popular Education training for NGO staff 
and NGOs are now applying these skills to their work with communities. NGOs 
consistently mentioned this TOT training as having a significant influence in their work.
Heifer-Indonesia is also poised to offer more individualized support to NGO community 
in the areas in which it is working. This service, as already mentioned, is available to 
NGOs who request it. To date, one non-member LC NGO has requested support from 
Heifer-Indonesia to assist it in applying the Cornerstones Model to the development of its 
strategic plan. Other NGOs, while mentioning that they have faced difficulties in the use 
of the Cornerstones Model and could benefit from additional support, have not requested 
this service from Heifer-Indonesia.
Heifer-Indonesia has also translated three manuals into Bahasa Indonesia—“The 
Cornerstones Model: Value-based Planning and Management”, “Livestock for a Small 
Earth: The Role of Animals in a Just and Sustainable World”, both published by HPI, and 
“Ethnoveterinary Medicine in Asia” published by IIRR in the Philippines. These are 
sold/distributed to the NGO community. (Two other manuals are in the process of being 
prepared for distribution.) Heifer-Indonesia has also produced and distributed a 
newsletter for the NGO. 
Additionally, Heifer-Indonesia provides funds for agriculture and livestock-related 
projects. Two new projects involving 4 COs have been funded to date and two old 
projects (inherited from the pre-Heifer-Indonesia days) were supported until their 
completion in 1999.
Heifer-Indonesia has conducted a number of useful and well-appreciated training 
workshops during this grant. It needs to build on these already initiated workshops and 
develop and implement a more comprehensive training strategy that identifies the 
sequencing of training, articulates a system for monitoring the impact of training, 
provides post-training follow-on support and links with Heifer-Indonesia’s funding 
capacity. This training strategy should be supported through the timely development of 
appropriate training modules (some of which are planned for the coming months) and 
through adapting already existing modules from HPI other programs. Additionally, to 
build on the formal training received (and, as already discussed, to enhance the capacity￾building agenda of Heifer-Indonesia), Heifer-Indonesia needs to be more proactive in 
assisting NGOs to take advantages of the support services that it offers. 
C. Cornerstones Model
This matching grant has clearly assisted Heifer-Indonesia in institutionalizing the use of 
the Cornerstones Model both in its own work and in its work with NGOs and, by 
extension, with the communities. Since the Indonesia program is new and the grant 
47
arrived at the time that structure was being given to the program, the introduction and use 
of the Cornerstones Model appears to have had a major influence on the program, its staff 
and within the HPI’s Asia/South Pacific (A/SP) Region.
Heifer-Indonesia has fully embraced the Cornerstones Model as a planning tool and has 
used it to develop its own vision and strategic plan. It has conducted 5 Cornerstones 
Model training events resulting in 72 staff from 33 NGOs being trained in the use of the 
Cornerstones Model. Heifer-Indonesia also led the LC through the use of the 
Cornerstones Model to develop its vision and strategic plan and used the Cornerstones 
Model in the para-veterinary program planning workshop. It has translated the 
Cornerstones Model manual and training guidebook into Bahasa Indonesia and made 
these available to interested parties. It has also funded two projects involving 4 COs 
emerging from the use of the Cornerstones Model process in the communities and formed 
a working group of LC members to develop a module for using the Cornerstones Model 
with COs. Additionally, Heifer-Indonesia has successfully encouraged the use of the 
Cornerstones Model for developing the A/SP strategic plan and has provided technical 
assistance to HPI-Thailand in developing a Cornerstones Model-based strategic plan. 
Visits to the NGOs revealed that the Cornerstones Model is well appreciated as a 
planning tool, and in particular one that emphasizes the importance of identifying values. 
Several NGOs have taken the model and begun to apply it to their own organizations in 
an attempt to define their situations and articulate their visions and values and one NGO, 
with technical support from Heifer-Indonesia, has gone as far as to begin to apply the 
Cornerstones Model to developing its strategic plans. Two NGOs have chosen not to 
apply the entire Cornerstones Model to their organization since, being affiliates of a 
national organization, they already have a predetermined mission and vision and are not 
in a position to change these. In most cases, though, the NGOs have taken the 
Cornerstones Model directly to the community, where it has been used most widely with 
COs for defining the situation and developing the vision and values and least widely for 
determining the strategic plan. 
During the visits to Heifer-Indonesia-funded projects, CO members appeared conversant 
with the Cornerstones Model process. In two of the four COs visited with ongoing 
Heifer-Indonesia-funded livestock projects, the process helped the COs identify and 
begin to implement other activities in the community just using internal resources. In one 
case the CO decided to plant fallow communal land with chilies and beans, for both home 
consumption and commercial purposes. In the other case, the CO spearheaded the process 
for repairing the community’s mosque using funds collected from community members.
While there was a great deal of appreciation for the model, NGOs indicated that they 
were having problems moving from the vision to the planning stage while implementing 
the model. This was true both when the model was used within the NGO and within the 
CO. This is an area in which Heifer-Indonesia should consider providing additional 
support to the NGOs both in the form of follow-up, hands-on assistance and in future 
training related to the Cornerstones Model.
48
The NGOs also indicated that some of the terminology and concepts were difficult to 
translate for appropriate understanding at the community-level and that the application of 
the Cornerstones Model at the community-level was very time consuming. In a number 
of cases it took between 5-9 meetings for the COs to complete the Cornerstones Model 
process. Heifer-Indonesia, therefore, could enhance the application of the Cornerstones 
Model by simplifying and localizing the terminology and concepts, as well as suggesting 
to NGOs simple timesaving strategies for applying the Cornerstones Model. Both of 
these improvements could partially be addressed in the module being co-developed by 
NGO and Heifer-International staff for use of the Cornerstones Model with COs.
Several NGOs also expressed strong desires for opportunities to share with and learn 
from other NGOs using the Cornerstones Model. In particular, the NGOs were interested 
in learning how others have adapted the model and overcome problems that have arisen 
during its use. Some sharing has already been done around the use of the model, but at a 
time when NGOs were less experienced with its application. Heifer-Indonesia should 
consider facilitating further opportunities for this now that more NGOs are using the 
Cornerstones Model and they are further along in their understanding and application of 
the model. 
Discussions with the NGOs and with the Heifer-Indonesia staff also revealed that the 
application of the Cornerstones Model process could benefit from encouraging greater 
flexibility on a number of levels. Some NGOs are already trained in and are using other 
planning tools such as SWOT, PRA and Appreciative Inquiry. NGOs need to be 
encouraged to bring these into the Cornerstones Model process where appropriate both to 
build on their existing skills and to enhance the Cornerstones Model tool kit for new 
users. This may also ultimately enhance the utility of the Cornerstones Model when these 
NGOs approach other donors who are more familiar with other planning tools. 
In broader terms, the use of the Cornerstones Model as an open-ended planning process is 
raising questions about how HPI as an organization effectively bridges funding livestock 
projects with other community development needs that might emerge through the use of 
the Cornerstones Model. In Heifer-Indonesia this dilemma may take on a slightly 
different twist. Heifer-Indonesia wants to promote bottom-up community planning that is 
not shaped by the fact that HPI funds livestock projects, while promoting a capacity￾building agenda. Heifer-Indonesia staff explained that they will try to link NGOs and 
COs with other donors for funding of non-livestock projects emerging from the 
Cornerstones Model planning process, but as of now it has not developed the networks 
needed for doing this. In the instances where livestock-related activities are correctly 
identified as one of the top priorities in the COs’ strategic plans, Heifer-Indonesia will 
consider funding the activities. It, however, needs to be made clear to all concerned that 
the livestock activities do not need to be the top priority, but rather that they need to have 
been identified as a priority and feature somewhere in the strategic plans. This 
clarification should help allay the fears that COs will identify livestock as the top 
priorities in order to receive funds (and in so doing sabotage the open-ended approach to 
the use of the Cornerstones Model), while still providing possible opportunities for COs 
to address real needs. From a capacity-building perspective, the planning and 
49
implementation of a livestock project can develop both skills and confidence of the CO to 
take on other activities. It can also provide fertile ground for identifying the needs and 
building the capacity of COs and the NGOs, as well as help to build their CO and NGO 
credibility in the community and with other development organizations.
D. Gender
The matching grant has acted as the impetus for Heifer-Indonesia to initiate its gender￾related training and focus. As with the Cornerstones Model, Heifer-Indonesia has applied 
gender principles and analysis to its own internal workings. The staff with 3 women and 
two men is gender balanced and there is no obvious gender bias to the division of labor. 
To promote gender sensitivity and gender as a programmatic concern, Heifer-Indonesia 
has conducted 3 gender workshops, training a total of 21 NGOs (17 female staff and 23 
male staff) in gender awareness and gender analysis tools. It has also encouraged NGOs 
to bring more gender balance, both at the NGO and the CO level, to the participants 
selected for training events. For funded projects, Heifer-Indonesia ensures that both the 
husband and wife sign the contract for the animal. 
In discussions, NGOs indicated that the gender training for their staff has had the greatest 
impact on the personal lives of the staff. While some of the NGOs have gone ahead and 
provided gender training to the CO members, most feel that they need more skills 
(especially in gender analysis) before they can train the community. For those NGOs that 
have replicated the training at the community-level, it appears that the training is being 
conducted without much thought given to how gender awareness and the gender analysis 
skills that are developed can be applied in a meaningful way. A few NGOs have decided 
that gender principles are best tackled by integrating them into ongoing activities, but 
they are still grappling with how best to accomplish this. From the four projects visited 
there is little evidence that the gender principles have filtered down to community 
members. This observation is supported by the fact that most NGOs feel that they 
themselves have not had much of an impact on this to date.
Heifer-Indonesia has clearly taken an important first step in raising awareness through 
training about gender principles. In order to take the next steps, gender principles must be 
seen as an integral part of the planning and implementation process. To this end, Heifer￾Indonesia needs to integrate gender principles into the Cornerstones Model—this is 
something that is already under consideration—and to ensure that these are enacted in the 
actual implementation of projects. Such an approach would make gender more of a 
strategic consideration, rather than simply a training topic.
E. Impact
1) The Impact Study
Four of the six surveys required for the impact study have been completed. A team of 
consultants hired to conduct the studies was trained by Dr. Felder at the outset of the 
exercise. The Heifer-Indonesia staff reported that the quality of the team’s work became 
progressively more shoddy over the three surveys—introducing a number of data 
collection mishaps that, according to Dr. Felder of Bradley University, raise questions 
50
about the validity of the data. For the fourth survey, a new team (an NGO that has 
participated in some Heifer-Indonesia activities) was contracted. Its staff was trained by 
Heifer-Indonesia and it has recently successfully completed administering the 
questionnaires.
Impact study participants were interviewed during this evaluation. All indicated that they 
found the process interesting, if somewhat long. (The survey now seems to take two 
hours to complete per family rather than the originally planned one-hour. Interviewers 
explained that the time frame had expanded because they needed to spend a fair amount 
of time explaining the questions.) During the survey process, the participants expressed 
that they were most interested by the questions and subsequent analysis concerning their 
household expenditures versus household income. All seemed eager to continue in the 
process.
Heifer-Indonesia, on the other hand, has been somewhat frustrated with the overall 
process, largely due to lack of communication from Bradley University—attempts to 
communicate with Dr. Felder have gone unanswered or have required intervention from 
the former Director of Evaluation. Further compounding the lack of enthusiasm for the 
study is the fact that the communities being surveyed originally received livestock and 
training from HPI-funded NGOs in the 1980s, prior to Heifer-Indonesia having an in￾country presence and the development of the Cornerstones Model. The Indonesia study 
results, while perhaps being of use to HPI headquarters, are therefore viewed as being of 
questionable relevance to Heifer-Indonesia. As a result of these cumulative factors, 
Heifer-Indonesia has not made the management of the impact studies nor the possible 
content of them a priority. 
2) Project Impact
Heifer-Indonesia has only recently funded projects so little thought has yet been given to 
incorporating the measurement of impact into the project cycle. Earlier in the grant 
period, the former Director of Evaluation had formulated a three-tiered system of varying 
degrees of complexity for measuring impact. The simplest and most basic system for 
measuring impact was called “the Volkswagen12” (also sometimes referred to as the 
“bicycle”). Heifer-Indonesia recently shared this tool with its two project holders, both of 
whom have adapted the tool and begun to collect baseline data. This tool may then 
become the basis of a system at Heifer-Indonesia for measuring project impact.
F. Projects
1) Overview
Heifer-Indonesia has funded two new projects13—that include one CO with a fish project, 
one CO with a water buffalo project and two COs with cattle projects—through two 
NGO project holders and, up until 1999, continued to support two projects from the pre￾Heifer-Indonesia days. Collectively the new projects involve 48 recipient families and the 
old projects 250 families (as of 1999), which makes a total of roughly 298 families, 
 
12 This measures changes in productive resources, education, housing and nutrition, as measured by food 
consumption.
13 Three, if one counts the agriculture and demonstration project run by Heifer-Indonesia.
51
benefiting directly from HPI-funded projects. The Detailed Implementation Plan, 
however, called for 600 families to benefit directly from HPI-funded projects. To 
promote this objective, HPI itself committed enough match funds to support and average 
of 6-8 projects over three years, the intent being that Heifer-Indonesia would fund 
roughly 6 new projects (with funding commencing in the first year), as well as continue 
to support the two old projects until they reached completion. Clearly, with only four new 
projects that were funded about four to five months prior to the expected end of the 
matching grant, by HPI’s own standards and expectations, Heifer-Indonesia has 
progressed very slowly in funding projects.
Given the fact that Heifer-Indonesia has been promoting a new strategy over the last three 
years, this evaluation focused only on the new projects that emerged from this new 
strategy and the discussion that follows refers only to the new projects and their project 
holders. The two new project holders represent two of the stronger NGOs in the LC and 
they have been working with the COs for a number of years. Both projects, which work 
with two COs each, are at the early stages of implementation. In two COs a group 
management approach is employed for taking care of the animals. Here, the animals are 
owned and managed by the COs. In both of these cases, schedules have been posted 
charting the individual responsibilities and these appeared to be clearly understood and 
smoothly implemented. In the remaining two COs, the animals are owned by the COs, 
but taken care of by individuals.
In all cases projects the COs and the NGOs are very enthusiastic about the use of the 
Cornerstones Model and the projects themselves. The COs articulated that the 
Cornerstones Model process helped to make their group more cohesive or unified. In two 
cases, it also allowed them to identify additional activities to undertake with their own 
resources. Again, in all cases, the animals appeared to be well taken care of as evidenced 
by the clean surroundings and presence of appropriate structures such as sheds and 
grazing pastures and sources of food.
Discussions with the members of the COs revealed all were aware of the pass-on concept, 
but most (especially in the group-managed projects) were not clear about the strategy to 
be used for the pass-on. This raises questions about the NGOs abilities to adequately 
advise the COs on this matter and about the leadership of and communication within the 
COs. 
Additionally, it appears that the selection criteria for the recipient families tended to focus 
on the families’ access to existing resources such as land and shelter for the animals, 
which may preclude the more needy members. In fact, in only one of the four COs was 
need identified as a selection criterion. It is therefore clear that the Heifer-Indonesia 
needs to provide more guidance concerning the application of this criterion (which is one 
of HPI’s cornerstones) to the NGOs and by extension the COs. Worth considering too is 
the fact that Heifer-Indonesia guides the NGOs to work with COs that have been in 
existence for three or more years, and depending on the origin and make up of the CO, 
this in itself may preclude the needier members of the communities.
52
While the projects, for the most part, appear to be relatively well planned, there do appear 
to be some gaps that indicate the need for more attention to the technical details in future 
projects. For example, in two cases, the members of the COs indicated that for breeding 
purposes, they would have benefited by, in one case including bulls and in the other 
including more bulls, in the pool of purchased animals. Also, in the fish project, the 
selection of fish species appeared not to be appropriate for the season in which it was to 
be introduced, given the silt deposition into the river. Moreover, while the NGOs and 
communities have been provided some basic training in animal husbandry, there is high 
demand for more technical training at the community-level.
What emerged clearly from these visits is the fact that Heifer-Indonesia needs to build 
into its work some way of ensuring that NGOs and COs better understand certain 
important HPI cornerstones—in particular, improved animal management, (technical) 
training, genuine need, and nutrition and income benefits—all of which appear to be 
weakly represented in the projects.
2) Monitoring Projects
In three of the four projects animal health problems, unbeknownst to the project holders 
and to Heifer-Indonesia, were identified. While these problems were small and are 
surmountable, this situation did indicate the need for closer project monitoring. Heifer￾Indonesia, therefore, needs to develop a simple monitoring system for projects and train 
the NGOs in the use of this. 
3) Selecting Project Holders
Heifer-Indonesia has defined its criteria for selecting NGOs as possible project holders. 
These criteria include: a) similar or complementary development priorities; b) no overly 
sensitive affiliations; c) history of credibility and effectiveness; d) experience/capacity to 
expand into project component; and e) experience/capacity for needed accountability. 
These criteria clearly favor the selection of the stronger NGOs as project holders, which 
in itself may be an acceptable programmatic choice. However, if Heifer-Indonesia is 
promoting capacity-building as a major thrust of its programming either these criteria 
need to be relaxed to allow weaker NGOs an opportunity to learn from implementing a 
project or the weaker NGOs interested in applying for projects need to be provided with 
more assistance so that they may eventually qualify. 
This aside, while these criteria have been circulated to the NGOs, they are unclear about 
these criteria, as well as the overall process for selecting project holders and funding 
projects. Amongst other things, contrary to Heifer-Indonesia’s strategy and criteria, there 
is the strong belief that membership in the LC increases likelihood of funding and that 
funding is contingent on the application of the Cornerstones Model process.
Heifer-Indonesia’s process for screening and ultimately funding projects involves 
screening, both the NGO and the CO with which it wishes to work. When working 
smoothly, by Heifer-Indonesia’s own estimates, it should take an NGO roughly six 
months (assuming that there are no problems) to move from screening to funding. The 
screening process appears to be overly risk-averse given the capacity-building agenda, 
53
and cumbersome and time consuming, especially considering the size of Heifer-Indonesia 
staff and their responsibilities. Heifer-Indonesia needs to consider ways to shorten this 
process (which for the current project holders took about a year14) to reduce NGO 
frustration and maintain the momentum in the communities.
G. Staffing and Support from Headquarters
Heifer-Indonesia, as previously explained, has an unusual staffing arrangement—where 
the leadership is contracted through a local consulting firm, Jasa KATOM. The full-time 
local staff is however considered employees of Heifer-Indonesia and the secretary divides 
her time between Heifer-Indonesia and Jasa KATOM. Heifer-Indonesia has invested a 
considerable amount of time to develop the skills and capacities of the staff and has 
developed a strong team to interact with the NGOs. However, given the scope of the 
program and the distances between the targeted provinces, it is not possible for Heifer￾Indonesia to maintain the type of contact that is needed to build the capacity of the 
NGOs. Heifer-Indonesia needs to expand the number of local staff by at least two—one 
additional Program Assistant and one additional Technical Assistant. To supplement this 
addition, Heifer-Indonesia also needs to identify and draw upon external expertise. This 
expertise could be drawn from within the LC15, Indonesia and A/SP (including from HPI 
A/SP offices). Also, given the relative youth of the field staff in terms of understanding 
the HPI organization as a whole, they and ultimately the program could benefit from 
greater exposure to other approaches and tools and materials used in the HPI world.
Heifer-Indonesia has received some support from HPI headquarters, but not as much as it 
has wanted and requested. Both Heifer-Indonesia and HPI headquarters have expressed a 
certain degree of frustration over this matter, highlighting the fact that expectations about 
types of support and channels of communications need to be discussed and clarified. The 
headquarters-Heifer-Indonesia support and communication problem appears to have been 
further complicated by a mismatch with management styles and management needs. The 
A/SP Area Director is trying to promote team management within the A/SP Region, 
which probably works well with older, more established and experienced programs. 
However, for a new program such as Heifer-Indonesia that has been requesting guidance 
and assurance, a more direct management style—including close supervision through 
frequent visits to the program—would be more appropriate. 
H. Finances and Administration
Heifer-Indonesia has had to overcome a number of hurdles regarding the financial aspects 
of the grants. Most of these grew directly out of the fact that Heifer-Indonesia, as a new 
country program with limited experience in dealing with USAID funding, was not 
offered the help necessary to get the whole financial system up and running smoothly. 
Others grew directly out of complications associated with sub-contracting with an already 
existing organization and the incredible currency fluctuations in Indonesia over the past 
 
14 This partly can be ascribed to the fact that the project holders were courted at a time when Heifer￾Indonesia’s training courses and operating systems had not been fully developed or applied.
15 For example, Bina Swadya was a project holder in HPI’s pre-matching grant period and through this has 
garnered considerable experience, which may be useful to the program, concerning the technical aspects of 
livestock projects.
54
three years. However, these too may have been avoided with the proper training and 
support in establishing a smoothly running financial system.
The two most notable financial problems reported in the implementation of the Heifer￾Indonesia grant are as follows:
· In the early stages of the program Heifer-Indonesia’s financial reporting to 
headquarters did not make the necessary distinctions between expenses charged 
against USAID’s and HPI’s portions of the budget. Based on feedback from 
headquarters, Heifer-Indonesia developed a computerized system tracking each line 
item and attributing expenses to USAID, HPI Match and Other Sources. It also put 
considerable time and effort into developing a bookkeeping system that clearly 
delineated Jasa KATOM’s and HPI’s records. The Program Assistant for A/SP has 
assisted Heifer-Indonesia in sorting through a number of these problems.
· Since HPI pays Jasa KATOM in dollars, but the program operates in Rupiah, Jasa 
KATOM-Heifer-Indonesia works in two currencies, tracking the expenses in Rupiah 
and reporting back in dollars. This in itself is not unusual or complicated, except for 
the fact that the exchange rate has been extremely volatile over the three years with 
considerable peaks and troughs16 over short amounts of time. 
Heifer-Indonesia has not focused on fundraising over the past three years. This means 
that, apart from $12,525 it raised from other sources, the program is supported by this 
grant—consisting of USAID funds and a HPI match and by HPI unrestricted funds. This 
grant supports 100% of the salaries for both the Program Assistant and the Technical 
Veterinary Assistant, both of whom are vital to Heifer-Indonesia’s delivery of services to 
NGOs and COs. It also covers 20% of the full time salary for the Country Representative 
with the remaining portion for the 1.5 time position being supported by HPI’s match. 
Heifer-Indonesia has also contracted the services of technical consultants for translation 
and for conducting gender workshops. Beyond this, Heifer-Indonesia has not utilized the 
technical services17 line item to support its program development. 
Heifer-Indonesia’s strategy, supported by HPI headquarters, was designed to develop the 
capacity of NGOs, while slowly and cautiously funding projects. This together with the 
fluctuations in the exchange rate—the higher the value of the US dollar, the more the 
Rupiah available for the program—has resulted in, as of 30th June, roughly 45% of the 
budget not being expended at the end of the three-year period. Of the funds that remain, 
60% is intended for funding projects. Currently, the US dollar is valued at roughly three 
times the amount in Rupiah than it was when the grant was awarded and this will affect 
the amount of local funds available for the no-cost extension period. In order to program 
the remaining funds most effectively Heifer-Indonesia needs to develop and submit to 
 
16 At the start of the grant one dollar equaled 2,400 Rupiah and at the time of the evaluation it equaled 
8,500 Rupiah. However during the grant, the dollar reached as high as 18,000 Rupiah.
17 Instead of hiring the marketing specialist specified in the grant application, it distributed the fund 
allocated for this position to the three target countries to use to pay for technical services in marketing and 
other areas of need.
55
HPI headquarters within the next few weeks a budgeted plan for the use the remaining 
funds. 
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategy
1. If Heifer-Indonesia is going to make capacity-building its core program approach, it 
needs to develop a stronger, more integrated strategy that encompasses the core 
business of HPI as a whole—which is improving the quality of life of needy families 
while developing strong COs through livestock projects. One way to stimulate this 
integration would be to provide a series of grants for planning and learning that might 
culminate in the funding of livestock projects. This approach would allow capacity￾building to be initiated around actual programming rather than in a vacuum.
2. The learning component of this program would be greatly enhanced by taking a less 
risk-averse approach. Such an approach would support both the weak and the strong 
NGOs, rather than focusing on the stronger NGOs. One possible way to promote such 
an approach would be to provide strong NGOs with support grants to assist or mentor 
the weaker NGOs.
3. Heifer-Indonesia strategy needs to include more proactive sharing of services and 
experiences in both the technical and capacity-building areas. Effectively, this means 
that Heifer-Indonesia needs to be creating the demand for its services rather than 
waiting for NGOs to request services. By way of example, when a weak NGO falls 
short of Heifer-Indonesia screening criteria and Heifer-Indonesia can provide services 
or can link the NGO with services to assist in building its capacity, Heifer-Indonesia 
should make the NGO aware of the specific assistance that it can offer and help the 
NGO develop a plan of action for addressing the weakness.
4. Heifer-Indonesia should extend outreach in providing such services by taking greater 
advantage of the rich resources that already exist and are being developed in the NGO 
community. An important part of this would be for Heifer-Indonesia staff to become 
more familiar with resources and skills that exist beyond the NGOs with which they 
already work.
5. As a means to build capacity of both the weaker and stronger NGOs, Heifer￾Indonesia should consider classifying NGOs by capacity categories and tailor services 
to meet the specific needs of each category. This may mean providing more intense 
training and follow-up to NGOs in the low capacity category and a less hands-on 
approach with those NGOs in the high capacity category.
Training
6. To more effectively meet the needs of the NGOs and ensure sustainable projects, 
Heifer-Indonesia needs to develop a more comprehensive training strategy for all 
content areas. Such a strategy should include monitoring the effectiveness of training, 
providing follow-on assistance and designing additional training based on need.
7. In particular regard to projects, Heifer-Indonesia needs to develop a training package 
for project holders that is based on a training needs assessment and draws on existing 
expertise wherever possible, as well as adapting training modules from other HPI 
countries. As a starting point, Heifer-Indonesia could develop such training materials 
56
by working with the existing fish, cattle and water buffalo projects. This would assist 
the NGOs implementing these projects, as well as prepare materials for future 
projects with these animals.
Projects
8. Heifer-Indonesia needs to review and refine the criteria and the application process, 
making them clearer and more transparent to the NGO community. Specifically with 
respect to the application process, Heifer-Indonesia should review this with the aim to 
shortening the process. HPI might want to consider seeking input from the LC while 
reviewing the criteria and application process since the LC is Heifer-Indonesia’s focal 
point for learning and it is made up of NGOs with varying capacities. One suggestion 
for shortening the application process is for Heifer-Indonesia to provide clear 
screening criteria to the NGOs for COs and restrict Heifer-Indonesia’s screening to 
the NGO level.
9. Planning of the livestock portion of the CO’s activities must include greater emphasis 
on those HPI cornerstones that relate to passing on the gift, improved animal 
management, technical training, genuine need of the recipients and nutrition and 
income benefits. One possible way of doing this would be to provide an orientation to 
the NGOs and COs before they plan the details of the project. This could be done 
either by Heifer-Indonesia staff with livestock expertise or designated resources 
persons with such expertise.
10. Heifer-Indonesia needs to make clear to NGOs that funding of projects is not 
contingent on the use of the Cornerstones Model, and that projects will be considered 
for funding provided a participatory planning process has been used and the project is 
technically sound.
11. Heifer-Indonesia needs to develop a minimum standard and set of tools for 
monitoring projects and then provide training to the NGO staff in their use.
The Learning Community (LC)
12. In order to increase learning opportunities for LC members special interest groups (or 
learning clubs) should be formed around thematic areas of interest and these groups 
could meet more frequently and report back to the ALCC. For example, thematic 
learning clubs might emerge around topics such as monitoring and evaluation, 
processing and marketing of products, and fundraising. Heifer-Indonesia could 
provide guidance and input to the structure and functioning of these learning clubs.
Cornerstones Model
13. Heifer-Indonesia should allow NGOs more flexibility in the use of the Cornerstones 
Model to encourage the addition of innovative tools to be used in every step. This 
could improve the tool kit offered to new users, as well as adapt the Cornerstones 
Model to the local situations. It would also allow certain NGOs to draw upon tools in 
which they are already trained and well versed.
14. In the design of the upcoming module on the Cornerstones Model attention should be 
paid to simplifying and localizing the terminology and including examples of how 
others have applied the model in a less time consuming manner. Examples of how to 
shorten the application of the model may result in a more cohesive application of the 
57
Cornerstones Model and less time expense for the participants of the Cornerstones 
Model exercise.
15. Heifer-Indonesia needs to provide more support to those implementing the 
Cornerstones Model in moving from the visioning to the planning phase. This can 
also be partially addressed through upcoming Cornerstones module being developed 
for use with COs. 
Gender
16. Heifer-Indonesia should continue with its plans to integrate gender into the 
Cornerstones Model and in so doing draw from the experience of Heifer-Bolivia, 
which has integrated gender successfully into the Cornerstones Model. Further, it 
should use the projects as vehicles for deepening the appreciation of gender principles 
by helping NGOs to develop strategies for addressing gender concerns.
Impact
17. Building on the initial introduction of the “bicycle” system for measuring impact, 
Heifer-Indonesia needs to ensure that a set of core measures are developed and used 
across all projects. NGOs should be consulted in the development of this set of core 
measures and can add their own measures if they feel the need to do so.
Staffing
18. Given the ambitious scope of this program, Heifer-Indonesia needs to increase the 
number of field staff to adequately provide the services to the NGOs. At a minimum, 
two additional field staff (one from an NGO or social science and one from a 
technical background.) should be added. Ideally, this would allow Heifer-Indonesia to 
place two field staff in Southern Sumatra (e.g., Palembang) and two in Bukittinggi 
and in so doing increase the contact with and outreach to NGOs in the program. To 
further bolster the provision of specific services to the NGOs, Heifer-Indonesia 
should draw more actively on existing resources both from within and outside of the 
NGO community.
19. Since Heifer-Indonesia is a new program, field staff should be provided with more 
opportunities for exposure to other HPI country programs to share ideas about their 
program and learn from others.
Finance
20. Heifer-Indonesia needs to develop a plan for using the remaining funds during the no￾cost extension, should it be granted. Some recommendations for the use of these 
funds are:
· Hire a consultant to develop a comprehensive training strategy
· Hire a consultant or bring in technical assistance from another HPI country office 
in Asia to assess the technical training needs of the community organizations 
currently with Heifer-Indonesia projects and produce training materials and 
modules to enhance the technical aspects of water buffalo, fish and cattle projects.
· Use some of the remaining funds to establish planning, learning and support 
grants to promote the development of projects and mentoring between stronger 
58
and weaker NGOs. (See Attachment 2: Some Thoughts on Planning, Learning 
and Support Grants)
· Actively follow-up with the NGOs that have shown interest in developing 
projects and provide them with the assistance needed to qualify for approval and 
funding before the end of the grant period.
· Provide funds for field staff to visit other country programs or clusters of 
programs
· Use funds to facilitate cross visits between NGOs and between COs.
59
ATTACHMENT 1: EVALUATION ITINERARY 
 1 August Arrival in Bukittinggi
 2 August Discussions about the program and the evaluation
 3 August Travel to Palembang
 4 August Meet with YPD and YP2M
 5 August Visit Bangsal water buffalo project 
 6 August Visit Sri Kembang fish project, meet with Kemasada
 7 August Travel to Lampang
 8 August Meet with Yabima, visit Ongele cattle project
 9 August Meet with Bina Swadaya-Kota Gajah, visit two impact study 
communities
10 August Visit Bali cattle project, meet with Bina Swadaya-Metro
11 August Travel to Padang
12 August Meet with LP2M, YBTI and PKBI in Padang, return to Bukittinggi
13 August Development of conclusions and recommendations
14 August Discussions about recommendations with Heifer-Indonesia staff 
15 August Final wrap-up and departure
 
60
ATTACHMENT 2: SOME THOUGHTS ON PLANNING, LEARNING AND 
SUPPORT GRANTS
Planning and Learning Grants
Planning grants are very small grants (say, $50*
) awarded to NGOs for the sole purpose 
of working with a community organization to identify and plan a development activity in 
community. During the interviews, some NGOs pointed to the lack of resources needed 
to work in the community as a barrier to submitting proposals to Heifer-Indonesia. This 
type of grant would provide NGOs—especially those that are most strapped for funds—
with the resources needed to go to the community and conduct planning adequately. In 
the Heifer-Indonesia program, these grants might be tied to the use of the Cornerstones 
Model—that they be awarded to NGOs interested in using the model with a community 
organization to establish the vision, develop a strategic plan etc. and plan a small scale 
activity. Alternatively, they could be more open ended and be available to NGOs as long 
as they will be using a participatory approach. 
Requirements for accessing the planning grants should be minimal. For example, if they 
are tied to the use of the Cornerstones Model, then a requirement might be that the NGO 
has attended at least one training in the use of the model and be willing to participate in a 
learning club on the Cornerstones Model. Another requirement might that the NGO has 
to take the initiative to fill out a very simple form and submit it by a specified deadline. 
The idea is to make accessing these grants very easy, but not totally without effort on the 
behalf of the NGO. 
NGOs receiving and using planning grants in a participatory manner to plan a small-scale 
livestock related activity with the community will be guaranteed a learning grant (also 
very small, perhaps in the range of $500*) on submission of the application, which 
should also be very simple. Keeping the application procedure simple is important to the 
“learning” agenda of these grants. The learning agenda is three-fold. 1) NGOs (especially 
the weaker ones) are provided the opportunity to plan with the community and implement 
an activity through the learning grant, thus developing their own skills and experience 
base. 2) Heifer-Indonesia is provided with an opportunity to identify problems that the 
NGOs have in planning and implementing activities and can assist the NGOs to build 
their capacity around these and other wider organizational areas either through hands-on 
support or through training events for clusters of NGOs. For example, if three NGOs had 
problems handling the funds due to poor financial management skills, Heifer-Indonesia 
might arrange for them to be trained in basic bookkeeping skills. 3) Heifer-Indonesia is 
provided with the opportunity to distinguish which NGOs are serious/committed (but 
perhaps lack skills) and which are not serious and are not worth expending much 
additional effort on. Additionally, this might provide an opportunity for Heifer-Indonesia 
to identify NGOs which it thinks could adequately handle a larger livestock project or an 
opportunity to identify the training that is needed before they become eligible for the 
larger grants. Additional learning clubs might also emerge from those NGOs 
implementing these grants. 
 
*
These figures are used to exemplify the relative smallness of the grants, but would need to be adjusted to 
fit the Indonesian context.
61
Since all of these grants are small and their main purpose is to allow NGOs to develop 
experience and to promote the learning agenda, it would not be necessary to monitor each 
grant in the way that the existing grants are monitored. Rather, the key would be for 
Heifer-Indonesia to monitor the overall process.
The Support Grants
Support grants could be provided to strong NGOs to assist the weaker NGOs in areas of 
need. This might be tied into the above learning grant process or might apply to the larger 
grants. So, for example, if an NGO is implementing a livestock project, but seems to be 
facing difficulties with respect to the technical animal management training, a support 
grant could be provided to an NGO that is strong in animal management for the purpose 
of “supporting” the weaker NGO in this area. Similarly, as the program proceeds, Heifer￾Indonesia could provide support grants to NGOs to act as mentors to a weaker NGO 
throughout the entire project. These grants, if applied creatively, could support a whole 
range of functions 
62
ATTACHMENT 3: DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
1) Final Evaluation of Heifer Project International’s Integrated Farm Family 
Development Matching Grant IV, Prepared for USAID by Yudelman and Pfohl, 
August 1996.
2) “Building Capacity Through the Cornerstones Model”, Matching Grant Application, 
Fiscal Year 1997 
3) Detailed Implementation Plan, Matching Grant Program “Building Capacity Through 
the Cornerstones Model”, Beginning Date: October 1, 1997
4) Mid Term Review of Heifer Project International’s Building Capacity through the
Cornerstones Model-Matching Grant V, Prepared for HPI by Jane Yudelman, July
1999
5) “The Cornerstones Model: Values-based Planning and Management”, by Jerry Aaker 
and Jennifer Shumaker, HPI (1996)
6) Cornerstones Matching Grant—Second Annual Report (1 October, 1998-30 
September, 1999) 
7) Cornerstones Model Implementation Strategy—Working Paper, Heifer-Indonesia 
(May, 1999)
8) Country Program Sustainability Strategy—Working Document, Heifer-Indonesia 
(June, 1999)
9) Becoming a Learning Organization: Learning to Reflect, Advocate, and Inquire, 
Heifer-Indonesia (March, 2000)
10) Bolivia USAID Matching Grant Cornerstones Workshop Trip Report, April 28-May 
3, 2000, by Dan Gudahl, HPI Africa Area Director
11) The Cornerstone Model Dialogue Draft Summary, by Jerry Aaker, Santa Cruz (May 
28-June 2, 2000)
12) Putting the Cornerstones Model into “Praxis”—Presented at the “Cornerstones Model 
Dialogue”, Heifer Indonesia, Santa Cruz (28 May-2 June, 2000)
13) Strategic Program Plan #6, Heifer-Indonesia (June, 2000)
14) Partnership Policy Paper—Results of a First Approximation, Heifer Indonesia 
(January 29-February, 1999)
15) Developing Monitoring and Evaluation and Impact Assessment Systems for 
HPI/Indonesia—Draft Working Paper, Heifer-Indonesia (July, 2000)
16) Heifer-Indonesia Quarterly Progress Reports from January 1997-June 1999
17) Project Summary Sheet—KJUB PUSPETASARI Klaten, Dairy Development 
Program, Heifer-Indonesia
18) Project Summary Sheet—Bina Swadaya, Intensification and Improvement of 
Livestock Production, Heifer-Indonesia
19) “Learning Together: The Agricultural Worker’s Participatory Sourcebook”, Susan 
Stewart, HPI (n.d.)