USAID/PVC Matching Grant Evaluation Series:
Partnership and Livelihood Security
Matching Grant No. FAO-0158-A-00-6051-00 between 
CARE USA and USAID/PVC
March 2002
FINAL REPORT
Conducted under USAID/ Evaluation Indefinite Quantity Contract #
AEP-I-00-00-00024-00
Order No. 1
Evaluation team members:
Michael Rewald (CARE USA)
Joan M. Goodin (MSI, Team Leader)
Ky Johnson (MSI)
i
4305-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................1
1.1 Overview...............................................................................................................1
1.2 Key conclusions and recommendations..................................................................2
1.3 Acknowledgements................................................................................................3
2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND TEAM COMPOSITION ...............................4
3.0 MATCHING GRANT BACKGROUND.........................................................................5
3.1 Historical & technical context................................................................................5
3.2 Project goals and objectives...................................................................................6
4.0 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION...............................................................................7
5.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS.................................8
5.1 The Detailed Implementation Plan.........................................................................8
5.1.1 Meeting DIP targets and data accuracy.......................................................8
5.1.2 Quality of DIP and degree of success in implementation ............................9
5.1.3 Familiarity with DIP and design...............................................................10
5.1.4 Major successes and shortfalls in implementation.....................................10
5.1.5 Impact Results..........................................................................................11
5.2 Assessment of project model and hypotheses....................................................... 11
5.2.1 Project hypotheses articulated in CA........................................................11
5.2.2 Replication and scale-up of approaches in project area or elsewhere.........18
5.3 Advocacy under the project ................................................................................. 19
5.3.1 Advocacy activities and impact ................................................................19
5.3.2 Partner/PVO roles in advocacy (see forgoing section) ..............................20
5.4 Implementation Lessons Learned......................................................................... 20
6.0 PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS......................................................................................22
6.1 Analysis of Partnership Schemes ......................................................................... 22
6.2 Measuring Institutional Capacity ......................................................................... 24
6.3 Constraints to Partnership .................................................................................... 24
6.4 Information Technology – N/A............................................................................ 24
6.5 Use of local networks and service organizations – N/A........................................ 24
7.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT......................................................................................24
7.1 Strategic Approach and Program Planning........................................................... 24
7.2 Country Initiatives............................................................................................... 25
7.3 Conflict Management – N/A................................................................................ 25
7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................. 25
7.5 Overall Management............................................................................................ 27
7.6 Sustainability....................................................................................................... 28
7.6.1 Overall sustainability survey – N/A..........................................................28
7.7 Financial Management......................................................................................... 28
ii
4305-001
7.7.1 Effectiveness of financial management.....................................................28
7.7.2 Leveraging other donor funds...................................................................28
7.7.3 Cost effectiveness of technical approach ..................................................28
7.7.4 Repercussions of “matching” requirement on program.............................29
7.8 CARE’s Information Management....................................................................... 29
7.9 Logistics – N/A.................................................................................................... 29
7.10 Project Supervision.............................................................................................. 29
8.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................29
iii
4305-001
ACRONYMS
AOP Annual Operating Plan
API Annual Project Information
BHR Bureau of Humanitarian Relief
CA Cooperative Agreement
CBO Community-based Organization
CO Country Office
DFID Department for International Development
DIP Detailed Implementation Plan
DME Design, Monitoring and Evaluation
EA/ME East Africa/Middle East
FFP Food for Peace
FY Fiscal Year
HLS Household Livelihood Security
HQ Headquarters
IEI Impact Evaluation Initiative
ISA Institutional Support Assistance
LRSP Long Range Strategic Plan
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MER Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
MG Matching Grant
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO Non-governmental organization
PACD Project Activity Completion Date
PHLS Partnership and Household Livelihood Security
PIMES Program Impact Monitoring and Evaluation System
PL-480 Public Law 480
PVC Private Voluntary Cooperation
PVO Private Voluntary Organization (usually U.S.)
RBA Results-based Approaches
UN United Nations
USAID United States Agency for International Development
iv
4305-001
EVALUATION IDENTIFICATION SHEET
PVO name CARE USA
Matching Grant Title Partnership and Household Livelihood Security
Cooperative agreement number FAO-0158-A-00-6051-00
Amount of Grant $3.8 million
Period of Grant October 1, 1996 through September 30, 2001
Any (cost/no cost) extensions? Yes – two-year extension from October 1, 1999 
through September 30, 2001
Current status of MG Completed
USAID/PVC Grant Officer (s) Martin Hewitt
Technical area of grant Institutional strengthening
Date of the evaluation December 2001
Countries of program activity Peru, Bolivia, Mali, Tanzania
Country programs evaluated Peru and Tanzania
Evaluation Team Members (organization) CARE and MSI
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Overview
USAID/BHR/PVC awarded a $2,400,000 Matching Grant (MG) to CARE/USA for the three￾year period from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1999. As recommended in a February 1999 
“final” evaluation report, the grant was subsequently extended for an additional two years, to
September 30, 2001, with a total budget of $3,800,000, to be matched by CARE. MSI was
contracted by PVC to conduct this summative evaluation, which was carried out between late
September and early December 2001 by a team comprised of two MSI specialists and one CARE 
representative. Team members reviewed relevant documents and interviewed key informants at
CARE headquarters in Atlanta and in Peru, as well as interested USAID officials and
representatives of partner organizations. 
This grant supported CARE’s Partnership and Household Livelihood Security (PHLS) program
which, broadly defined, sought to institutionalize within CARE the concepts and methodologies
of three major programming initiatives: i) Partnership; ii) the Household Livelihood Security
(HLS) framework; and iii) Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DME). As stated in the February
1999 evaluation report: “The PHLS cooperative agreement was structured to be a capacity 
building project (a primary focus of the PVC Matching Grant Program), rather than a direct
impact project.” The models developed in the four pilot countries selected were to be
documented and disseminated throughout the CARE system. Activities were carried out by a
newly created PHLS Unit at CARE headquarters in Atlanta and in the pilot countries: Mali,
Tanzania, Peru and Bolivia. 
Through the institutionalization of PHLS, CARE sought to shift from a purely sectoral
orientation to a more holistic focus on the complete set of household livelihood security needs, as 
identified in the HLS framework. Partnership with other institutions (NGOs, CBOs, government) 
were to provide not only a means to implement activities addressing more than one of these
needs simultaneously, but also to strengthen the capacity of partners to deliver relevant services
effectively, efficiently and sustainably.
Because the DIPs approved by USAID/PVC did not provide for the measurement of impact-level 
accomplishments, particularly household-level impact, and since many targets were non-specific, 
with results described almost exclusively at the output level, it was not possible to determine the 
precise degree of “success” or ultimate impact achieved as a direct result of the PHLS grant.
Nevertheless, the elements of the DIPs for which there are specific indicators and targets were
found to have been implemented successfully. 
The first three of the four major hypotheses on which this MG was based appear to have been
valid: i) that focusing in a holistic manner on a comprehensive set of securities at the household 
level would improve project impact; ii) that working with partners would increase program
coverage and sustainability, while also increasing their capacity to deliver relevant services
efficiently and effectively; iii) that the incorporation of DME systems to track changes,
particularly at the household level, would permit COs to measure impact and improve
programming. However, the fourth hypothesis (that the four pilot countries would produce
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
models to be disseminated by the PHLS Unit throughout CARE and among partners and
colleagues) proved to be too limited, in that the creation and testing of models was not based
solely on activities in those four countries.
The activities supported by this grant facilitated the introduction of PHLS as an organization￾wide programming framework (a first, which is an accomplishment in an of itself), and
contributed significantly to what appears to be an historic change in CARE’s basic programming 
philosophy. Rather than concentrating on the effects of poverty, the organization has decided to 
pursue “rights-based approaches” (RBA) aimed at exploring and resolving its underlying causes. 
This implies CARE’s entry into areas such as policy analysis and advocacy. The experience
accumulated by virtue of efforts to institutionalize PHLS as an organization-wide programming
framework is expected to help inform the process of addressing and operationalizing RBA in the 
future.
Finally, it should be noted that CARE USA is one of ten independent, national organizations that 
make up CARE International (CI), which manages programs in over 60 countries. Based on
grant-supported experience, the organization has been successful in transferring PHLS concepts
to CI, thus broadening the ramifications of these activities beyond the 36 countries in which
CARE USA works.
1.2 Key conclusions and recommendations
As described in the various sections of this report, the key conclusions drawn by evaluators from 
the findings outlined, and the recommendations that were formulated on the basis of those
conclusions include the following:
Conclusions:
® PHLS approaches have been successfully institutionalized within CARE and have 
contributed to changing the way the organization addresses poverty alleviation. The
incorporation of rights-based approaches into its philosophy is CARE’s next big
programming challenge. The process supported by this grant provides significant insights to 
help guide that effort.
® DIPs were prepared in accordance with USAID requirements but, once approved, did not
provide significant guidance for management of the grant, nor was that required by PVC. In 
sum, DIPs were not used for on-going performance measurement or reporting.
® Since impact indicators were developed only for measuring change at the household level
and not at the level of higher goals and objectives, it is not possible to measure precisely the 
impact of the overall matching grant, particularly with regard to changes in the institutional
capacity of CARE and its partners.
® PVC’s requirement that grantees specify at the outset the specific “pilot” countries in which
activities are to be funded, even when the objective is institution-wide, limits the grantee’s
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
ability to create or enhance field-based incentives or to take best advantage of opportunities 
while minimizing obstacles.
® Given that both ISAs and MGs are aimed at strengthening grantee institutions, to maximize
results while creating greater efficiencies from the grantee’s perspective, it would be helpful
for PVC and FFP to seek to align grant requirements and procedures more closely.
Recommendations:
1. PVC should improve the format for and provide a results framework to be used by all
MG recipients for the preparation of DIPs. The framework/matrix should call for
indicators that measure performance at all levels in terms of quality, quantity and time,
as well as specific PACD (project activity completion date) targets related to those
indicators.
2. CARE should develop, test, and make available to all country offices tools for measuring 
multi-sectoral impact within the household and for tracking results at levels beyond the
household, as well as indicators for measuring changes in the institutional capacity of
CARE offices and of partner organizations.
3. CARE should document and disseminate within the organization and to other PVOs
overall lessons learned and new insights resulting from the PHLS grant.
4. To increase the effectiveness of MGs aimed at strengthening the capacity of entire
organizations or institutionalizing new approaches, USAID/PVC should consider
eliminating the requirement that grantees specify at the outset the specific countries in
which they will pilot grant-related activities or allocate funding.
5. PVC should explore with FFP the possibility of more closely aligning ISA and MG
requirements and procedures, the goal being to achieve greater synergy and the broadest 
development impact possible, which is in everyone’s interest.
1.3 Acknowledgements
Members of the evaluation team wish to express our deep appreciation for the confidence placed 
in us and for giving us this opportunity to work with USAID and CARE on such an interesting
assignment. 
Our special thanks go to the staff of CARE Atlanta and CARE Peru for the spirit of cooperation 
with which they received our requests for information and facilitated our work. Likewise, we are 
grateful to all the Peruvian government officials, CARE partners and USAID/Peru officials who 
shared their time, knowledge and opinions with us. Each of the individuals contacted made a
significant contribution to the overall results recorded here. We thank them all.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND TEAM COMPOSITION
Approach:
The overall approach to this evaluation was participatory. The three-member team included two 
MSI staff members, and one from CARE. The methodology employed consisted of document
review, interviews with key informants and focus groups and frequent discussions among team
members to confirm findings, conclusions and recommendations. Evaluation tasks were
undertaken during the following four major phases:
Phase One:
® Preparatory work in Washington - Half-day Team Planning Meeting with CARE and
USAID officials (September 24) and document review at MSI headquarters (October 22-
24); interview with the USAID/BHR/PVC CTO (November 7).
Phase Two:
® Visit to Atlanta - Team Leader traveled to CARE headquarters to interview key staff and 
collect additional documents (October 25-26).
Phase Three:
® Field visit to CARE Peru - The full team traveled to Lima and two members also visited 
Ayacucho; further review of key documents and interviews with CARE staff and
consultants, government officials, partner organizations, and USAID officials
(November 13-21).
Phase Four:
® Preparation/submission of draft report (November 26-December 17).
® Incorporation of USAID and CARE comments, and production of final report.
The original plan was for evaluators to travel to Tanzania from October 31 to November 8. That 
trip, together with the visit to Peru, would have provided an opportunity for data collection in
two of the four pilot countries involved in this grant. However, due to tightened travel
restrictions resulting from the September 11 tragedy, it was not possible to obtain country
clearance from USAID/Tanzania. Thus, key CARE personnel in that country were later
interviewed by telephone from MSI/Washington.
As indicated in the various sections of this report, data were verified through the review of key
documents (see Annex A for a complete list) and interviews with relevant individuals and groups 
(Annex B provides a list of persons contacted). Findings are based on the information collected, 
while conclusions and recommendations are the opinions and contributions offered by the
evaluation team. 
Report Format:
It should be noted that the team was asked to use a pre-determined format for the preparation of 
this report. That is because this is one of a set of some 12 final evaluations of Matching Grants
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
for which MSI was contracted by USAID/PVC. Therefore, to facilitate possible future study at 
the level of the overall PVC grant program, it was determined that all reports would employ the
same sections and sequence. Non-applicable sections are marked simply “N/A.”
Team Composition:
Based on the Scope of Work (see Annex C) , the evaluation team was comprised of the
following members:
® Joan Goodin, MSI Senior Associate, served as Team Leader. Ms. Goodin has led a
number of USAID evaluations, and is a specialist in the field of civil society. Last year, 
also under contract to PVC, she prepared a Case Study of the impact of PVC Matching 
Grants on CARE. That effort provided an opportunity to develop a basic understanding 
of the issues involved in this final evaluation. 
® Ky Johnson, MSI Program Associate, was also selected for this team. Mr. Johnson has 
experience in qualitative and quantitative assessment, broad exposure to USAID
programming, and has lived and worked in a number of developing countries. 
® Michael Rewald of the Program Division was selected by CARE to serve on this team. 
Mr. Rewald has been with CARE for over ten years, holding high-level positions in a
number of CARE’s country offices. He also served as Acting Director of the PHLS
Unit at CARE headquarters for a year, and is well versed in the various aspects of the
grant under review. 
3.0 MATCHING GRANT BACKGROUND
3.1 Historical & technical context
USAID/BHR/PVC awarded a $2,400,000 Matching Grant (MG) to CARE/USA for the three￾year period from October 1, 1996 to September 30, 1999. The grant was subsequently extended 
for an additional two years, to September 30, 2001, with a total budget of $3,800,000, to be
matched by CARE. This MG supported CARE’s Partnership and Household Livelihood Security 
(PHLS) program which, broadly defined, sought to institutionalize within CARE, including its
36 Country Offices (COs), the concepts and methodologies of three major programming
initiatives: i) Partnership; ii) the Household Livelihood Security (HLS) framework; and iii)
Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DME). PHLS was structured to be a “capacity building
project,” rather than a “direct impact” project, and the models developed in the four pilot
countries selected were to be documented and disseminated throughout the CARE system.
Activities were carried out by a newly created PHLS Unit at CARE headquarters in Atlanta (HQ) 
and in the pilot countries: Mali, Tanzania, Peru and Bolivia. Several key positions at CARE
headquarters and in each of the four pilot countries were funded through the grant.
CARE proposed to use different approaches in each of the four pilot countries, thus producing
“models” for dissemination throughout the organization. Bolivia was to work with established,
formal non-governmental organizations; Peru with sector-based partnerships; Mali with
beneficiary-owned organizations; and Tanzania with local organizations and indirect service
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
delivery. The PHLS Unit at HQ and its coordinators in each of the four pilot COs were expected 
to develop and test new approaches to promote Partnership, HLS and DME in those countries; to 
institutionalize these approaches in their countries’ programming; and then, based on lessons
learned in the pilots, to disseminate and promote these strategies throughout the rest of the
CARE system. 
Through the institutionalization of PHLS, CARE sought to shift from a purely sectoral
orientation in development work to a more holistic focus on the complete set of household
livelihood security needs. While these include many basic needs as traditionally defined, they
also include higher-order needs, such as environmental protection and building social capital and 
participation in civil society. Partnership with other institutions (NGOs, CBOs, government)
were to provide not only a means to implement activities addressing more than one of these
needs simultaneously, but also to promote the sustainability of these interventions. 
PHLS became the intellectual underpinning for CARE’s development efforts as the organization
restructured itself both at headquarters and in the field to reflect its new vision. This restructuring 
stressed not only cost efficiencies through streamlining operations and forging strategic
partnerships, but also the achievement of greater impact for less cost by promoting synergy
between various sectoral interventions. 
The concept of Household Livelihood Security was officially adopted by CARE in 1994, based
on the concept of food security as articulated by USAID through the food aid program (PL-480 
Title II). With HLS, food security was broadened to encompass other basic household securities, 
such as nutrition, health, economic, education, habitat, environment, and so forth. These are
diagnosed through rapid, participatory assessments conducted in areas selected by CARE for
long-term involvement. Once the exact nature of these household insecurities is known, key,
leverage-point interventions are designed and funding sought from one or a number of donors.
Baseline studies and effective monitoring and evaluation systems are then incorporated in these
poverty-reduction efforts from the design stage. 
As an integral part of this initiative, CARE undertook to promote program quality, effectiveness
and impact. Using HLS as the conceptual framework, and promoting partnerships with local
institutions, CARE sought to use this MG to clarify its definitions of impact and what is required 
to plan for, achieve and evaluate impact on the lives of its intended beneficiaries. Thus, an
important purpose of the work undertaken was to significantly strengthen the capacity of CARE 
staff and partners to design, monitor and evaluate all that they do in the four pilot countries and 
wherever CARE works. 
3.2 Project goals and objectives 
Given that the original three-year grant was extended for two additional years, the initial goal
was later re-stated. For phase I (1996-1999), the MG included the following goals and
objectives. 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
TABLE 3.2: PROJECT HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES *
Goals: 1. To enhance CARE’s capacity to improve Household Livelihood 
Security of more than 18 million poor families on various points of 
relief to development continuum; and
2. To enhance CARE’s sectoral programs at the community level
through strengthened local partners.
Objective 1: To operationalize the concepts of Household Livelihood Security
CARE-wide through an effective and locally appropriate M&E
approach, and to disseminate lessons learned to CARE COs,
colleagues.
Objective 2: To build CARE’s ability to partner with local organizations and
capacity of partners to deliver relevant services efficiently,
effectively and sustainably.
For the phase II extension (2000-2001), grant elements were to be made “more truly cross￾cutting while strengthening the three key elements of the ‘PHLS approach’.” In particular, while 
work in the four pilot countries was to continue, the dissemination of those models was to “be
intensified during the extended phase of this grant.” The overall goal of this phase was stated as
follows:
“Based on the HLS framework improve the analysis, design, monitoring & evaluation of
CARE programs, especially those implemented with partners, in order to achieve
demonstrable impact on the households of target communities.”
The matrix included as Annex D presents a re-configured and more detailed picture of the goals, 
objectives, indicators, targets, and accomplishments included in the two DIPs, which cover the
entire five-year period.
4.0 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The prime purpose of this final evaluation is to fulfill the requirements of USAID/BHR/PVC’s 
Matching Grant Program, which will use this information to assess how well the MG met its
objectives and to assist in the review of any follow-on proposals presented by CARE. In
addition, together with other MG assessments, this evaluation is to assist PVC in: 
ß determining patterns and emerging issues across all MG funded programs; 
ß identifying the technical support needs for grantees;
ß shaping new MG RFAs; 
ß developing internal and external documents to demonstrate the effectiveness of the MG
program; and 
ß sharing lessons learned with the entire PVO community. 
PVC will use the information outlined in the Scope of Work (see Annex C) in its annual Results 
Report and in USAID's annual report to Congress. 
 
*
 From the 1996-1997 Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP), submitted to USAID/PVC in March 1997.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
The second purpose of this evaluation is to help CARE assess, articulate and learn from its
experience in implementing the MG-funded PHLS initiative over the past five years. Though
technically a summative evaluation (in the sense that the MG is finished), it can actually be seen
as a formative evaluation in that CARE has stated its intention to continue promoting
Partnerships, Household Livelihood Security, and enhanced program Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation throughout the organization. Thus, the lessons learned from this experience can help
guide CARE into the future.
5.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION QUESTIONS
5.1 The Detailed Implementation Plan
5.1.1 MEETING DIP TARGETS AND DATA ACCURACY
Findings:
(a) As shown in Annex D, at the Objective level, seven of the 15 indicators (47%)
included in the two DIPs were non-specific in terms of PACD targets. At the
Activity level, nine of the 34 indicators (26%) were non-specific. 
(b) The “Accomplishment” column included in Annex D provides information on the 
achievements realized under the grant. As shown, nearly all of the eight
Objective-level and 25 Activity-level targets specifically described in the DIPs
appear to have been met. The majority of these targets involved activities in the
four pilot countries or all CARE COs, or were one-time events or publications.
The large volume of reports, publications and other materials produced under this 
grant, plus interviews with key informants, made it possible to verify this finding. 
(c) Because change occurs ever-more rapidly at all levels of society, it is highly
unlikely that the implementation plans designed by MG awardees for three to five
year periods will lead to maximum results over the longer term unless periodically
updated.
Conclusions:
(a) CARE has regularly documented and maintained records of grant-related 
activities.
(b) The overall purpose and higher-level objectives included in project DIPs
constitute a framework for monitoring progress, and should remain constant over 
time. However, it is important to review changing local/national circumstances on 
a regular basis (say, annually), and to revise specific lower-level activities (inputs) 
in order to maximize new opportunities or avoid emerging problems. Because
DIPs were never reviewed/updated to reflect changing circumstances, they do not 
reflect the most effective use of MG funds, nor are they effective management
tools.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
Recommendation:
(a) PVC should consider providing for the periodic review and possible revision of
DIPs in order that the activities funded may maximize emerging opportunities or
overcome unexpected obstacles. 
5.1.2 QUALITY OF DIP AND DEGREE OF SUCCESS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Findings:
(a) As stated in various project documents and in the February 1999 evaluation report,
“The PHLS cooperative agreement was structured to be a capacity building project (a 
primary focus of the PVC Matching Grant Program), rather than a direct impact
project.” 
(b) As shown in Annex D, no measurement of impact-level accomplishments, particularly
at the household level, was envisioned in the DIPs approved by PVC. Results are
described almost exclusively at the output level and, as discussed above, for a good
number of objectives and activities, no measurable indicators or specific PACD
targets were stipulated. 
(c) It was reported that the format and matrix used by CARE for the preparation of the
phase I DIP had been provided by, and was a requirement of, PVC. The phase II DIP 
was completely narrative, with no matrix or results framework. While both DIPs were 
based on the general terms of the CA, the format used did not require specific,
measurable performance indicators. 
Conclusions:
(a) Given that neither DIP included measurable indicators, and that many targets are non￾specific, it is not possible to determine the precise degree of “success” in quantitative 
terms. Nevertheless, the elements of the DIPs for which there are specific indicators
and targets were implemented successfully. 
(b) DIPs were prepared in accordance with USAID requirements but, once approved, did 
not provide significant guidance for management of the grant, nor was that required
by PVC. In sum, DIPs were not used for on-going performance measurement or
reporting.
Recommendations:
(a) PVC should improve the format for and provide a results framework to be used by all
MG recipients for the preparation of DIPs. The framework/matrix should call for
indicators that measure performance at all levels in terms of quality, quantity and
time, as well as specific PACD targets related to those indicators. 
(b) PVC should require that the results frameworks contained in the DIPs be used as the 
basis on which grantees prepare their Annual Reports. Thus, progress could be
reported in relation to the objectives stated in the framework, and measured in
accordance with approved indicators. 
(c) Grantees should use the new, improved DIP as a management tool for continually
tracking progress against specific, measurable results, revising it as needed, rather
than preparing this document merely as a PVC requirement. 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
5.1.3 FAMILIARITY WITH DIP AND DESIGN
Findings:
(a) Staff of the PHLS Unit and other key personnel at CARE headquarters as well as in
pilot COs exhibited familiarity with the underlying principles of the DIPs and the
general areas covered. It was found that there is broad awareness at various levels of
the organization of the three major aspects of the MG – Partnership, HLS and M&E. 
There is also an understanding that the grant supported activities at headquarters and 
in the four pilot countries. While it was found that DIPs were not used as a
management tool, or that they served as a “living document” to be consulted on a
regular basis, the logic of their overall design appears to have been fully understood. 
(b) The DIPs were found to underestimate the organization-wide mandate of the PHLS
Unit at HQ and to overestimate the importance of the four pilot countries in terms of
reaching MG objectives. While those pilots were to provide “models” for
dissemination throughout CARE, the PHLS Unit spread its net far more widely
within and outside of the organization, and did not depend solely on pilot COs for
testing and documenting ideas and lessons in order to institutionalize PHLS concepts. 
5.1.4 MAJOR SUCCESSES AND SHORTFALLS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Highlights of implementation experience, based on review of the DIPs and other documents, as
well as interviews with key informants, are summarized in the table below.
TABLE 5.1.4:MAJOR SUCCESSES AND SHORTCOMINGS IN IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation Experience at a Glance
Major Successes Major Shortcomings/Constraints
PHLS concepts institutionalized within
CARE
Difficulties in retrofitting PHLS within existing
projects
CARE’s basic program philosophy changed
from direct service provider to indirect
service delivery through partners 
Lack of performance indicators for measuring
capacity-building within CARE and in partner
organizations 
CARE COs assessed their capacity to monitor 
and evaluate projects and developed plans to
strengthen that capacity
Lack of buy-in in some COs by CARE staff,
who see PHLS as a separate project, rather than 
as a holistic, cross-cutting approach
PHLS opened the door to new projects and
entry into new areas without antagonizing
others
Failure to develop, document and disseminate
PHLS “models” among pilot COs and within
CARE
CARE was motivated to expand PHLS
concepts to “rights-based approaches” (RBA), 
representing a further advance on the relief￾to-development continuum
Difficulty in finding qualified staff in a good
number of countries, especially in DME
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
5.1.5 IMPACT RESULTS
Findings:
(a) In the absence of impact indicators against which to measure grant performance (either at 
the household level or at the higher organizational level), for purposes of this evaluation, 
organization-wide results appear to have been accomplished, as reflected in the recently
adopted CARE Strategic Plan for FY2002-2006. That Plan states: “Over the past five
years, the household livelihood security framework has enabled CARE USA to develop
expertise in cross-sector analysis of underlying causes of poverty and in identification of
critical leverage points that increase the impact of programming. Household livelihood
security, enhanced by rights-based approaches to programming, will continue to be our
guiding conceptual framework… We will also invest further in helping country offices
explore and integrate efforts in advocacy, partnership, civil society and gender equity and 
diversity… We must continue to strengthen design, monitoring and evaluation systems,
particularly as rights-based approaches are implemented.”
(b) As discussed in Section 7.4, efforts to measure impact concentrated on the household
level through indicators designed around the eight components of livelihood security
contained in the HLS framework. 
(c) Ironically, though project documents and the prior evaluation report emphasize that
PHLS was a capacity-building, rather than direct impact activity, indicators to measure
performance at that level were never developed. Neither changes in the capacity of
CARE, nor that of its partners, have been regularly tracked. Indeed, various key
informants asserted that the development and application of capacity-building measures
was a high priority for the future. (A start was made when all COs were asked to assess
their DME capacity, providing a baseline for measuring future DME trends within
CARE.)
Conclusion:
(a) CARE senior management have demonstrated their commitment to 
 institutionalizing PHLS concepts within the organization. 
(b) Since impact indicators were not developed for measuring change at the level of higher
goals and objectives, it is not possible to measure precisely the impact of the overall
matching grant, particularly with regard to changes in the capacity of CARE and its
partners. However, evidence strongly suggests that change has occurred within CARE as 
a result of this grant. 
5.2 Assessment of project model and hypotheses
5.2.1 PROJECT HYPOTHESES ARTICULATED IN CA
Findings:
(a) The four major hypotheses on which this MG was based were: i) that focusing in a
holistic manner on a comprehensive set of securities (beyond food security) at the
household level would improve project impact; ii) that working with partners would
increase program coverage and sustainability, while also increasing their capacity to
deliver relevant services efficiently and effectively; iii) that the incorporation of DME
systems to track changes, particularly at the household level, would permit COs to
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
measure impact and improve programming; and iv) that the four pilot countries would
produce models to be disseminated by the PHLS Unit throughout CARE and among
partners and colleagues.
(b) Before discussing these hypotheses, it is important to appreciate their overall effect on
CARE as a development organization. It was found that the application of the HLS
framework and the concept of partnership have contributed to what appears to be an
historic change in CARE’s identify and the way it works. This relates to the
organization’s decision to pursue Rights Based Approaches (RBA), the ramifications of
which are enormous since they involve moving into the areas of advocacy and policy
reform (a further advance along the relief-to-development continuum). CARE’s 2002-
2006 Strategic Plan notes that this decision was made after a period of research, analysis
and experimentation during the previous plan period, and lists as Strategic Direction 1:
“Adopt Rights-based Approaches to Achieve Greater Impact on Poverty and Social
Injustice.” The plan states that, “rights-based approaches will enrich and not replace the
HLS framework,” noting that these approaches “demand that CARE… work to eliminate 
practices that violate the social, cultural, economic, civil and political rights of people in
poor communities. They also demand that we try to change policies and attitudes that
perpetuate such practices.” 
The momentum generated by PHLS for moving on to RBA was clearly evident in the
field. A key informant at CARE Peru asserted: “PHLS is a powerful tool to identify
needs, but is simply a first step; it remains at the level of symptoms. To complete the
picture, we need to find out about the causes. It needs to be combined with RBA - behind 
every unsatisfied need there’s an unfulfilled right.” CARE Tanzania reported: “New
concepts such as gender, benefit harm analysis, and RBA are building on the HLS 
framework, moving beyond the household to the issues happening at the context that
affect the same households; the need for policy analysis and advocacy has become more
prominent and CARE Tanzania projects are increasingly looking at how policies can be
made to benefit the poor… It becomes obvious that CARE has to focus on demystifying 
these new concepts, equipping itself and its partners with capacity to engage in policy
debates and dialogue and thus operationalize RBA within the HLS framework.” The
Tanzania Country Director reported that to pursue this new direction the CO is currently
recruiting candidates for a new position: Policy & Information Coordinator. The plan is
to pay for this new position with the CO’s own resources, eventually shifting this cost to 
project budgets. Other staff in that CO expressed a strong sense of urgency noting that,
due to the rapid pace of change there and their PHLS experience, CARE is now “in a
good position to take a leadership role, working with others,” adding that “Tanzania is
moving faster than what Atlanta is doing regarding RBA,” and underscoring the urgent
need for guidelines to operationalize this new concept, not just materials dealing with it 
on a conceptual or intellectual level. 
(c) Hypothesis 1; HLS: The first hypothesis involved the application of the household
livelihood security framework to the design and execution of projects in targeted
geographic areas, generally selected because of the high incidence of poverty. CARE
officially adopted HLS (defined as “adequate and sustainable access to income and other 
resources to enable households to meet basic needs”) as a programming framework in
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
1994. Applying this concept in specific locations requires significant changes in the way
COs work. This engendered resistance on the part of officials in some COs, while others
(including Bolivia and Tanzania) initially saw PHLS as a separate project, rather than as
an overarching, holistic approach. Geographic targeting was a shift away from projects
addressing specific technical sectors (i.e., agriculture, water, health, small enterprise,
food security, etc.) scattered in different locations. The clustering of various sector
projects in the same area was aimed at affecting the same set of households and was
found to have produced greater coordination and synergy among technical teams. CARE 
Peru reported that clustering had also led to greater cost effectiveness, particularly with
regard to equipment and transportation costs, since the staff of different projects could
travel together to the same location. Finance and administration managers there explained 
that PHLS had led to the re-assignment of all vehicles to the CO, de-linking them from
specific projects. Thus, no single project “owns” the vehicles; they are now subject to use 
by all staff members on an as-needed basis. It was also reported that administrative costs 
had been reduced because PHLS had led to the establishment of regional sub-offices in
targeted “economic corridors” (areas also targeted by the GOP and by USAID/Peru), 
with space and equipment shared by all personnel, rather than each project maintaining
its own logistical arrangements. This, plus the CO’s decentralization plan, had led to a
40% reduction in support staff in 1998, and a savings of 13% for regional office
overhead. 
In sum, as observed in CARE Peru, when a CO embraces HLS as a “holistic” approach, 
this does not always mean that individual projects are multi-sectoral. It may mean that
sector projects are clustered in the same area and, by targeting the same set of poor
households, greater overall impact is expected. Meanwhile, the HLS Unit at CARE
headquarters reported that “many projects worldwide… have used the HLS approach to 
craft a multisectoral approach within a single project.”
Once the geographic area is selected, an HLS assessment is conducted to determine the
relative levels and types of household insecurity among the targeted population. These
assessments, known variously as “Rapid Livelihood Security Assessments” (RLSAs) or
“diagnostic studies,” were found to be the cornerstone of the PHLS process, though they
differ widely in terms of duration, cost, depth and scope. They generally involve the
collection of data from targeted households, as well as the use of available secondary
data. Results are analyzed and leverage points are identified for the design of potential
projects. During the life of the MG, 11 RLSAs were conducted in the four pilot countries, 
while assessments were also carried out in 22 other countries (Annex B provides a list).
They are conducted for various reasons. CARE staff often referred to assessments as
planning tools, emphasizing that, while HLS approaches can be easily applied to new
projects, it is extremely difficult to retrofit them into existing activities, especially since
that would imply donor approval for necessary adjustments. One criticism expressed by a 
number of interviewees was that assessments are “too expensive.” However, that view
implies that there is only one way to do an assessment, while it was found that they run
the gamut from limited samplings in small communities to region-wide efforts. A
weakness of the assessment process mentioned by various interviewees at HQ and in the
field relates to the use of the data collected. It was generally felt that the emphasis is
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
placed on the collection process, while too little attention is given to the analysis and
interpretation of the information collected. It was also felt that in many cases an
overabundance of information is gathered, which only complicates subsequent analysis. 
CARE Tanzania reported that, because that office was newly established as a permanent 
CO shortly before the PHLS grant began, the RLSA conducted in Dar Es Salaam (the
first such assessment in an urban area) had resulted in great visibility and credibility,
putting it “on the map.” With MG funding, that CO conducted three RSLAs (two urban
and one rural), and is now preparing a fourth using its own resources. It has reported that, 
thanks to this greater recognition, the number of CARE projects increased from seven
when the PHLS grant began to the current portfolio of 18, six of which were designed on 
the basis of recommendations from two of the HLS assessments, and that the funding
base has been greatly diversified among different donors. One lesson reported by that CO 
is that “HLS diagnosis should not be necessarily elaborate, but rather should look into the 
nature and type of programming opportunities envisaged and consider use of existing
data, [leading] to the selection and use of simple and cost effective sampling
methodologies.” 
(d) Hypothesis 2; Partnership: This hypothesis envisioned the advantages of working with
partners of various types and at different stages of the project cycle for the purpose of
increasing coverage and impact in terms of poverty reduction. Partnership is defined by
CARE as “a set of principles involving trust and mutualism.” The MG was to provide for 
a Partnership Coordinator at HQ and in the four pilot countries. However, this component 
was weakened by staff turnover at all offices, and compounded by resistance to these
positions on the part of some senior regional managers. The initiative began in 1996 with 
the appointment of a Coordinator in Atlanta, who conducted a review of existing CO
partnerships. This led to the formulation of Partnership Guidelines and a policy paper in
1997. However, during the following 18 months the position was vacant at HQ, and staff
turnover occurred in the field. It was not until the final two years of the MG that another 
person was brought on by the PHLS Unit as the Partnership Coordinator to serve until the 
end of the grant. He conducted a three-part study, and in 2001 the following documents
were published: Partnership Principles – What We Have Learned About Partnering and
Institutional Capacity Building; Promising Practices – A Case Study of Partnership
Practices and Issues; and Partnership Recommendations. Another recent study,
Financial, HR and Administrative Aspects of Partnerships, examines the more practical
aspects of this issue and offers recommendations as to how the organization can change
its systems to facilitate partnerships more effectively. The April 2001 report of a CARE
partnership workshop held in the UK describes the Partnership Principles and Key
Behaviors that had been adopted, and states: “The nature of the relationship depends on
the degree to which the principles are implemented, rather than on the relationship’s
structure.” 
It was found that the HLS assessment process motivated COs to identify and involve 
partners in their work. Though some assessments are done by CARE staff, it appears that 
in most cases, once the CO determines the area to be targeted, the public and private
organizations working there are identified and invited to participate in data collection,
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
analysis and planning tasks. For this purpose, COs provide orientation or even formal
training. The expectation is that partners will also be involved in providing the services
found to be needed, whether as CARE sub-grantees or through separate projects in their 
own areas of technical expertise, thus enhancing coverage and impact. In Peru and
Tanzania, for inexperienced or weaker local partners, the CO often provides financial
management training for sub-grantees or assists them in drafting project proposals and
identifying potential donors. Thus, it seems clear that the capacity of partner
organizations is strengthened, though this aspect of the process is not measured or
reported. This finding was supported by anecdotal information indicating that a number
of partners have used this experience to carry out their own assessments in other areas
and have received funding for the resultant projects. The application of assessment
experience has also been reported in connection with academic studies and presentations
at public events.
The Long Range Strategic Plans of all four pilot COs and of CARE USA include
partnership as the fundamental element. An important underlying concept as articulated
in above-mentioned report and echoed by staff in HQ, Peru and Tanzania is that: “ CARE 
will increasingly shift from a service delivery mode to one of facilitation and capacity
building. CARE’s role will be to establish and nurture coalitions among public, private
and civil society stakeholders whose programs influence the structural causes of poverty
in society.” As explained in CARE Tanzania’s Final Progress Report, “Partnership has
been institutionalized in all new project design and implementation and even existing
projects have evolved over time from direct service delivery to indirect service delivery
through partners.” That CO estimates that between 75% and 90% of its services are now 
delivered through partner organizations – of which they count over 40 district/municipal
councils, 420 CSOs, three private companies, and 354 primary schools. CARE Peru also 
reports progress in the transition to indirect service delivery, and has identified four types 
of partnerships, designed for: i) local development; ii) advocacy; iii) joint venture; and iv) 
complementary expertise. These involve a large number of central, regional and local
government bodies, the private sector, NGOs, CBOs, and multi-institutional networks.
(See Section 6.1 for information on the number of partnerships reported CARE-wide.) 
(e) Hypothesis 3; DME: The importance attached to this component of the PHLS grant was 
clearly evident during interviews at HQ and in the field and in the documents reviewed.
Evidence includes the fact that, once the MG was completed, the Program Division
decided to continue the DME Coordinator position using unrestricted funds. As discussed 
in Sections 5.1.5 and 7.4, DME efforts were linked primarily to the application of the
HLS framework and indicators to measure impact at the household level. While the DME 
Coordinator at HQ began some five years ago, efforts appear to have been slowed by the 
complexity of DME concepts and by difficulties in finding and retaining personnel with
relevant skills in the four pilot countries. A first step was the self-assessment of DME
capacity by all COs and the development of plans to strengthen it. In general, key DME
tasks include the collection of baseline data in conjunction with HLS assessments and
subsequent project design, the development of logframes, and the monitoring and
reporting of performance. Final evaluations, it was found, are generally conducted by
outside consultants. A DME Capacity Assessment Toolkit and HLS Impact Guidelines
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
were published by the PHLS Unit in February 2000, while a Design Manual is available
in draft, and a Baseline and Evaluation Guide is still being developed.
It was found that a conundrum cited in the February 1999 PHLS evaluation report
remains unresolved: “The principal contradiction in the conceptual framework of HLS is
that most interventions remain sectorally focused and community oriented, and multi￾sectoral household focus only becomes a reality in impact measurement. Clustering of
projects in the same geographic area is not the same as focusing these projects on the
same households.” This has significant implications for the monitoring and reporting
process. The indicators provided in the HLS framework for measuring the various kinds
of household securities are used in the design of assessment tools and for the collection of 
data from households within the target area. However, project M&E systems are
generally designed to measure change at the broader community level – as is required by
most donors. Therefore, it was found that no data are available to confirm the number of
households affected, nor the degree of intra-household impact achieved. 
Key informants at HQ reported that, of the four pilot countries, Mali is the most advanced 
in the area of DME, which also coincides with the 1999 evaluation report. It was noted
that currently Mali has two staff members for this component, and that it has also
strengthened its capacity in the area of partnership. However, the HLS component
remains weak.
CARE Tanzania also has two DME staffers at present, has created a DME task force and 
has introduced and trained “M&E Point Persons” in each project, whose responsibilities
include the identification of DME capacity needs of field staff and partners. The DME
assessment report of the EA/ME region states: “Tanzania has been a leader in DME in
the region, being the first CO to complete its capacity assessment, and to hold a CO-wide 
workshop to review the assessment, revisit all project log-frames, and to devise a strategy 
that includes a program area baseline survey.” That CO reports that it “has been able to 
enhance the DM&E skills of partners to the extent that they have managed to diversity
their funding base through improved quality of project design and reports.” Concerned
about the need to measure cumulative impact above the level of individual projects, that 
Office is now in the process of developing a Programme Impact Monitoring and
Evaluation System (PIMES) to capture and account for impact at the higher multi-sector 
program level. 
To emphasize the need to learn from experience, CARE Peru changed the job title from
DME to “Evaluation & Learning Coordinator,” and also has a “Research & Learning
Specialist.” Under the MG, the Coordinator position was funded 25% by PHLS and 75% 
by the Title II program. Now, 40% comes from Title II, 20% is covered by projects, and 
40% from CARE. Noting that it is difficult to build DME into on-going projects, the
official policy of that CO mandates that all new projects start with baselines and have an
M&E system. It has developed a comprehensive, three-day DME training workshop for
project staff, as well as an M&E self-training module on the CO’s Intranet, which reaches 
all staff. The design of Peru’s three large, new programs included a DME coordinator;
reportedly, the current challenge is to identify common indicators among projects for
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
each major sector. CARE Peru has not yet provided DME training for partner
organizations, but envisions doing so in the future.
The regional DME Capacity Assessment report states that at CARE Bolivia “there is no 
formal DME team… and projects lack detailed M&E plans. The practical and theoretical
links between project design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and the intended
impact are weak.” The report also notes that diagnostics “are often focused within a
predetermined sector and do not use an HLS approach… M&E is perceived as something 
required for purposes external to the project… project staff had little formal instruction or 
practical training on how they could make use of the various DME concepts and tools to 
strengthen their project and to contribute to its impact.” 
Unfortunately, tools and indicators for measuring change in the area of capacity building
have not been developed. CARE staff indicated that this shortcoming has been
recognized and that a joint study (with the American Red Cross) was recently
commissioned and is to provide recommendations concerning this issue. It seems clear
that the HLS assessment process in and of itself produces increased capacity on the part 
of CARE staff and among partners. In Peru, for instance, a five-day workshop is held
prior to carrying out an assessment, and workshops are held upon completion of the
process in order to analyze the data and plan next steps. It would have been possible to 
measure organizational change as a result of that process, for example, by administering a 
simple pre- and post-assessment survey among all participants. In short, it was found that, 
while capacity-building has almost certainly occurred within CARE offices and partner
organizations as a result of the HLS process, it is not possible to verify that finding since 
there was no provision for measuring or reporting on that aspect of the grant. 
(f) Hypothesis 4; Pilot Country Models: This hypothesis was based on the notion that the 
four countries would produce PHLS models, which would then be disseminated CARE￾wide by the PHLS Unit in order to achieve the institutionalization envisioned. It was
found that for a number of reasons this did not happen. First, given the complexity of the 
PHLS approach, and the interplay among its three major components, plus the enormous 
differences that exist between country contexts, no concrete “models” emerged. Second,
the PHLS Unit wisely took a broader approach to institutionalization. Information,
assessments and case studies of various aspects of CO operations were solicited across
the board – not just from the four pilots. In addition, to help spread the word, PHLS staff 
participated in many organization-wide gatherings and regional meetings and workshops. 
The bulk of the input gathered for the various manuals and guidelines published by the
Unit came from many COs, not just from the four pilots. 
While there is no concrete evidence for this finding, it seems very likely that, because it
had been pre-determined that a good proportion of MG funds be allocated to only four
pilot countries chosen up front, it is likely that the PHLS Unit was unable to maximize
other opportunities as they arose. Under this grant, only 38% of total funding was used by 
HQ, while 62% was allocated to pilot countries (Bolivia, 15%; Mali 16%; Peru 15%; and 
Tanzania 16%). 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
Conclusions:
(a) The first three hypotheses (use of the HLS framework, working with partners, and the
incorporation of DME systems) were fully tested in all pilot countries, as well as by 
many of CARE’s 32 other country offices. The testing of the fourth hypothesis
(institutionalization of PHLS based on models produced by the four pilot countries) was
the responsibility of the PHLS Unit at HQ, and does not appear to have been feasible.
(b) Because the MG established no system for measuring these hypotheses, no objective
data are available to specify the degree of accomplishment. However, the anecdotal
information found leads to the conclusion that the first three hypotheses were correct,
while the fourth was not. 
(d) The HLS assessment process has increased CARE’s credibility as a development actor in
some countries and opened the door to new programmatic areas and donors. It also
contributed to the adoption of RBA as an official programmatic approach.
(e) Working with partners has increased coverage in the four pilot countries, but it is too
early to measure the sustainability of partner-sponsored efforts, particularly since the
strengthening of their overall organizational capacity was not directly addressed. 
(f) While a good foundation has been laid for the incorporation of effective DME systems
throughout the organization, much is yet to be done, particularly in the areas of higher￾level objectives and indicators for measuring capacity building efforts, both internally
and externally. 
(g) PVC’s requirement that grantees specify at the outset the specific “pilot” countries in
which activities are to be funded, even when the objective is institution-wide, limits the
grantee’s ability to create or enhance field-based incentives or to take best advantage of
opportunities while minimizing obstacles. 
Recommendation:
(a) To increase the effectiveness of MGs aimed at strengthening the capacity of entire
organizations or institutionalizing new approaches, USAID/PVC should consider
eliminating the requirement that grantees identify at the outset the specific countries in
which they will pilot grant-related activities or allocate funding. 
5.2.2 REPLICATION AND SCALE-UP OF APPROACHES IN PROJECT AREA OR 
ELSEWHERE
(a) Evidence was found in Peru and Tanzania to indicate that the application of the HLS
framework has been replicated in a variety of settings. In both countries, PHLS
approaches spread beyond the areas originally targeted, triggering new project initiatives.
While no concrete data were found on the breadth of replication within the organization as 
a whole, the global report on HLS assessments indicates that as many as 23 COs have
engaged in these efforts. The evidence found indicates that PHLS activities have been
replicated far beyond the four pilot countries involved in the grant.
(b) Evidence of significant scale-up activity was also found in Peru. One change stimulated
by PHLS activities concerns that country’s five-year Title II Food Security program (a
$23 million grant that until its recent completion represented 26% of the total budget). In 
1999, the CO proposed and USAID approved an amendment, adding $1.5 million for a
fourth grant component - a two-year local management initiative (September 1999-2001) 
called FOGEL, carried out in four departments of the country. FOGEL’s objective was to 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
build the capacity of municipal governments to work in a concerted effort with local
organizations to achieve food security in the 11 economic sub-corridors targeted. (The
FOGEL grant document includes a logframe which provides indicators for measuring
local government strengthening.) A final evaluation just completed by a seasoned external
consultant concluded that FOGEL “constitutes one of the most complex and successful
experiences seen [in Latin America] for strengthening the management capacity of
different municipalities and of facilitating the formation of spaces for coordination led by
those municipalities.” Success was built around the HLS assessment approach, which had 
culminated in the creation of multi-sectoral “Mesas de Concertación” (Coordination
Councils) in 67 municipalities, 46 of which were found to be totally or nearly
consolidated. The evaluation report states: “Framed within CARE’s holistic approach,
FOGEL was marked by its multi-sector character and by the importance of partnership as 
a source of synergy and complementarity... The project worked with 70 agreements with
municipalities… and carried out 40 partnerships with NGOs and eight with different
private institutions.” Some 50 strategic plans had been formulated by the Mesas, and it
was found that the $400,000 provided by CARE in small grants had leveraged over $1.5
million for local projects – many with municipal funds. 
Building on this model for strengthening local government and public-private 
coordination, CARE Peru responded to three RFAs from the USAID Mission; one for a
new five-year Alternative Development project ($23 million), and two for five-year 
projects under the Peru-Ecuador border program ($14 million and $1.5 million). All three 
bids involved HLS approaches and partner organizations, and all were successful. These
new activities have now been launched and represent a significant percentage of the COs
current portfolio. In addition, CARE Peru was awarded a grant by DFID for a three-year 
civil society program to start in April 2002 (reported to be a scaling-up of the FOGEL
model at the regional level).
Conclusions:
(a) While it is not possible to quantify the degree of replication and scale-up of PHLS that 
has occurred throughout CARE, it is clear that the approaches supported by the MG have 
permeated the system and have been incorporated into country programming in all
regions.
Recommendation:
(a) CARE should develop case studies of significant new initiatives stimulated by the
success of PHLS approaches, such as that found in Peru, and disseminate these
throughout the organization and beyond. 
5.3 Advocacy under the project
5.3.1 ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES AND IMPACT
Findings:
(a) Since advocacy was not among the objectives of the PHLS grant, no data were collected 
in this area. However, anecdotal information was found to indicate that some advocacy
activity at the local level had been stimulated by PHLS initiatives. For example, in Peru
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
the FOGEL component of the Title II project (discussed above) had led to a coordinated, 
public-private effort in one area to press regional leaders for increased resources to
support various parts of the strategic plan drawn up by the multi-sectoral Mesa de
Concertación. 
(b) At the organizational level, it was found that PHLS had contributed significantly to the
adoption of rights-based (rather than needs-based) approaches (RBA). The
institutionalization of RBA concepts will inevitably involve CARE in areas such as
policy analysis, advocacy, negotiation and policy change. To study the organization’s
approach to this new challenge, an RBA Reference Group has been created at HQ and is 
now exploring ways in which organization-wide implementation might be pursued. It was 
suggested by one CARE official that the process employed for incorporating PHLS into 
the system, including the mistakes made along the way, itself constitutes a model for the
institutionalization of RBA. One issue under study is when and under what circumstances 
CARE should engage in “direct” advocacy rather than through others, as it has on several 
occasions, such as the effort to achieve peace in Sudan. 
Conclusions:
(a) PHLS has laid the foundation for CARE to move more squarely into the field of
advocacy aimed at affecting the causes of poverty, rather than concentrating only on its
effects. 
5.3.2 PARTNER/PVO ROLES IN ADVOCACY (SEE FORGOING SECTION)
5.4 Implementation Lessons Learned
Findings:
(a) An enormous volume of studies and documents and a good number of tools and
methodologies related to the three components of the MG were produced or further
developed during the PHLS grant. These include, for example, the two-volume HLS
Manual published in English, French and Spanish in 2001 and sent free of charge to the
four pilot countries and all other Title II countries (it was made available to other COs at a 
cost of $350). The various papers concerning HLS, partnership and DME mentioned in
foregoing sections of this report were also developed under the grant (see materials listed 
in the bibliography attached to this report for a more complete listing). A PHLS web site
was also launched, and is currently being tested and refined. 
(b) Based on the opinions registered by a number of CARE representatives, both at HQ and in 
the field, efforts to institutionalize PHLS appear to have produced two key lessons. First, 
because insufficient input was solicited from throughout the organization at an early stage, 
HLS was seen to be a “top-down” initiative whose “owner” was a single individual at HQ, 
thus engendering considerable resistance, if not resentment, in some quarters. Second, the 
early materials distributed to explain HLS dealt with it on a conceptual or intellectual
level, rather than providing operational guidance for its implementation. Various
interviewees expressed a hope that this will be avoided in connection with efforts to
institutionalize RBA. 
(c) A number of interviewees underscored the failure to disseminate information and lessons
learned concerning PHLS throughout the organization on an on-going basis. While
various new developments and initiatives were described in field reports and observed by
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
evaluators on the ground, they are not generally documented (or translated) and
distributed throughout the system by way of providing technical assistance or guidance.
Noting the lack of attention to dissemination, one of the recommendations of the 1999
evaluation stated: “All examples of successful coordination between CARE projects or
between CARE and other donor projects need to be documented and studied. It is the role 
of the Atlanta PHLS Unit to galvanize and inform this process.” 
(d) A comprehensive set of lessons learned from the PHLS process was developed in a recent 
workshop by key members of CARE’s senior staff. Results are included in a September
2001 draft paper titled “The Institutionalization of Household Livelihood Security in
CARE: A Global Review,” which states that it is hoped that learnings from this process
will help inform efforts to institutionalize RBA. Highlights from the paper are as follows: 
What Worked Well in Institutionalizing HLS
· The introduction of HLS was supported by a large pool of resources (Title II and the
PHLS Grant).
· Key people in CARE/USA were supportive of the livelihood approach.
· A number of cases were accumulated before there was visibility of the approach.
· There was an attempt to have a number of people to provide technical assistance as
demand for the approach increased.
· CARE trained a cadre of TA from the beginning both within and outside the organization 
to insure that demand could be met.
· There were venues for people to vent their issues regarding implementation.
· The livelihood framework was adapted to different settings and COs.
· HLS was woven into various levels of planning (project design, regional planning,
LRSPs).
· Commitment to the approach was sustained through political transitions (changes in
senior management).
· Supportive technical materials were developed.
· Donors began to buy into the approach (particularly DFID).
· It was important to embrace dissention.
· HLS was evolutionary and kept incorporating learnings.
What did not Work Well in Institutionalizing HLS
· The TA was seen as Headquarters-driven.
· The HLS model was made overly complicated.
· There were too many think pieces introduced at once.
· The approach was introduced as if there was a rigid sequential plan.
· The HLS Assessment was seen as the beginning and end of the approach.
· Simplified messages in bite-sized pieces should have gone out sooner.
· The application of HLS in emergency settings was not made clear.
· People were not always aware that the institutionalization process required vetting and
testing the approach.
· The conceptual models became an enterprise in and of themselves.
· The focus on taking HLS concepts to the design and planning level came too late.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
· There is a need to stay in front of learning needs -- don’t try to roll out the approach so 
comprehensively.
· More horizontal learning could have been done.
· People must know up front that the approach is not fully evolved.
· If the Country Director did not like the approach, it did not get institutionalized.
· HLS papers were academic and English-centric -- there was a need for simpler materials
for multiple audiences.
· The HLS model and approach was made to look like a huge thing that had to be
swallowed whole -- it might have been better to introduce it incrementally.
Conclusions:
(a) While some case studies and lessons learned have been collected, the dissemination 
within CARE of information on new “models” or field-based experiences related to 
grant-supported activities has been weak. 
Recommendation:
(a) CARE should document and disseminate within the organization and to other PVOs 
overall lessons learned and new insights resulting from the PHLS grant.
6.0 PARTNERSHIP QUESTIONS
6.1 Analysis of Partnership Schemes
Findings:
(a) It was found that, during the five years of the PHLS grant, CARE has made significant
progress in working with and through partners, particularly in terms of the number of
partnerships recorded. Because organization-wide partnership numbers have only
recently been tracked, comparative data over the life of the grant are not available.
However, based on the FY 2001 Annual Performance Indicators (API) report, which
includes information from all COs, some 27,858 partnerships existed among the 36 COs, 
up from 23,816 in FY 2000. A vast majority of these were with local governments
(13,446) and CBOs (10,139). Many involved informal working relationships (particularly
with village governments and CBOs), while only 3,488 (12.5%) had formal, written
agreements, most in the form of MoUs. If the 4,273 partnerships with organizations other 
than village governments and CBOs are considered, then the percentage with formal
agreements increases to 81.6%. 
(b) As discussed in Section 5.2.1, partners benefited from PHLS approaches by participating 
in activities stimulated by the grant, particularly HLS assessments and project
coordination. Though the original idea was that each pilot country would focus on
developing partnerships with different types of organizations, this was found not to be the 
case. Because the identification of appropriate partners is a function of local context, all
countries work with a broad array of partners, from national, regional and local
governments to community groups and formal NGOs. Private sector relationships were
explored in all pilot COs, but success was mixed.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
(c) The manner in which partners were selected varied from one country to another, with
each CO establishing its own guidelines and selection criteria. Building on the
experiences of the COs, at the end of the grant period the PHLS Unit did develop a
“Partner Selection Tool” to provide general guidance in this area. 
(d) Given the wide variety and nature of relationships described by COs as “partnerships,” it 
is not possible to pinpoint the precise level of involvement of CARE’s partners in project 
activities. API data indicate that 77% of the resources in projects that CARE implements 
with or through partners is managed by the partners. It is also reported that 29.1% of the 
partners have been involved in project M&E. However, direct contact with donors by
partners is not the norm, with only 1.2% of CARE’s partners being involved in donor
relations. 
(e) One concrete indication that the concept of partnership has become institutionalized in
the organization is the fact that CARE’s 2002-2006 Strategic Plan states that the Strategic 
Direction related to Constituency Building will build on lessons gathered in the area of
partnerships.
(f) Institutional capacity building within partner organizations is included as a component of
many CARE projects. However, while the organization is now exploring how best to
measure these efforts, systems have not yet been developed to monitor and evaluate these 
efforts.
Conclusions:
(a) The PHLS grant allowed CARE to experiment with and stimulate different types of
partnerships and, based on these experiences, the organization has begun to clarify its
thinking about how best to interact with other organizations committed to poverty
reduction. The documents produced under the grant clearly demonstrate that CARE’s
approach to partnership has matured in recent years.
(b) Partnership is very context specific, and organization-wide guidelines need to be broad
enough to allow for local adaptation.
(c) While the concept of partnership is now institutionalized within CARE and most projects 
work with or through partners, understanding the organization-wide ramifications of this
approach and operationalizing it are still at an early stage. 
(d) Efforts to build the organizational capacity of partners are also at an incipient stage and
will take some time to develop and document. This will become increasingly important as 
RBA moves forward.
Recommendations:
(a) CARE HQ should collect partnership information from all offices on a regular basis,
analyzing relationship types, the role of partner organizations, the results expected and
those achieved through this approach to programming.
(b) CARE should formulate and incorporate into the programming process specific measures 
for addressing and tracking changes in the institutional capacity of partner organizations. 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
6.2 Measuring Institutional Capacity
Findings:
(a) As previously discussed, though it appears that the institutional capacity of CARE and its 
partner organizations was enhanced through PHLS activities, efforts were not made to
capture this information or measure the degree to which change may have occurred.
6.3 Constraints to Partnership
Findings:
(a) A number of local partners were interviewed in Peru and were universally positive about 
their relationship with CARE. This included representatives of a central government
ministry and a UN agency in Lima, as well as several mayors, other municipal officials
and local CBOs and NGOs in Ayacucho. Only one report was heard of a partnership that 
had gotten off to a rocky start. This involved a budget-related misunderstanding between 
CARE Peru and a sub-grantee involved in a newly-funded program in that country.
However, those difficulties appear to have been amicably resolved.
6.4 Information Technology – N/A
6.5 Use of local networks and service organizations – N/A
7.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
7.1 Strategic Approach and Program Planning
Findings:
(a) The PHLS grant was not intended to improve CARE’s ability to plan strategically,
though it has influenced the content of the Long Range Strategic Plans (LRSPs)
developed both at HQ and by country offices. The CARE USA Strategic Plan for 2002-
2006 is replete with references to PHLS concepts and calls for future activities based on
those concepts. HQ personnel includes a full-time Strategic Planning and Analysis
Coordinator who reports directly to the president, as well as liaison positions in both the
Program Division and the External Relations Division. 
(b) The LRSP adopted by CARE Peru for FY 2001-2005 contains references to the three
major PHLS components. It states, for example, “the need to define a role and
organizational structure appropriate for the future and to consolidate the transition from a 
centralized, assistance-oriented program to one that incorporates the concepts and
participatory methods of the PHLS approach.” It also states: “CARE Peru coordinates
projects with partner organizations to the fullest extent possible to maximize efficiency,
effectiveness and productivity… We will replace our current system to monitor progress
towards organizational objectives with a comprehensive monitoring system.”
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
7.2 Country Initiatives
Findings:
(a) Based on observations and interviews with both CARE and USAID personnel in Peru, it 
seems clear that the relationship is marked by mutual respect and a high degree of
communication and coordination. Both financial and progress reports related to locally￾funded projects are filed in a timely manner, and it appears that lessons learned are shared 
on an on-going basis. 
7.3 Conflict Management – N/A
7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
Findings:
(a) A priority objective in the CARE Program Division’s FY 99 Annual Operating Plan
(AOP) was the development of guidelines and standards for measuring impact in CARE 
projects. To achieve this, an “Impact Evaluation Initiative” (IEI) was established with an
IEI Working Group comprised of some 24 individuals representing nine COs, HQ offices 
and specialized consultants. The objective of IEI was “to offer a structure of norms and 
practices that will help programmers design ‘at impact,’ and a menu of indicators and
tools that facilitate a common language and methodology for impact measurement across 
CARE.” Nine projects that showed exemplary potential for achieving and measuring
impact were identified by Regional Managers, and a case study was written on each.
They were from COs in: Bangladesh, Egypt, El Salvador, Honduras, Lesotho, Mali,
Nepal, Peru and Uganda. The culmination of the IEI initiative was a workshop held in
Atlanta in April 1999, where case studies were presented and next steps were formulated. 
By October of that year, the Senior Vice President for Program transmitted to all COs a
set of documents resulting from that effort, including the nine case studies, an Impact
Evaluation Checklist, a Menu of Standard Indicators for HLS Impact, and a DME
Capacity Assessment Toolkit. Following a period of testing and feedback, in February
2000 those materials were published in a document titled “CARE Impact Guidelines,” 
which was transmitted to all COs.
(b) As noted in that publication, using the DME Capacity Assessment Toolkit, all COs were
asked to “conduct self-assessments of their capacity to do effective program and project 
diagnosis and design, establish and implement useful monitoring systems, and organize
good quality evaluations,” using the HLS framework. These assessments, which aimed at 
identifying areas of strength and weakness, were then to be used by COs to develop
strategies and plans for strengthening specific aspects of their DME capacities.
(c) In August 2001, a Global Synthesis Report on DME capacity assessments was drafted.
Based on results received from 23 COs covering 186 projects, findings included:
· 20% of projects were based on full HLS Assessment;
· 84% had logframes;
· 73% had household level impact as their final goal;
· 36% were reported as having detailed M&E plans;
· 80% were reported as having some form of a baseline; however, only
· 43% had baselines that included a quantitative survey;
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
· 57% measured indicators of impact;
· 72% included indicators of effect;
· 63% have ways to disaggregate beneficiaries by gender;
· 66% had reports that meet the needs of donors;
· 38% had adequate DME training during the past two years;
· 65% had plans for future training in DME.
(d) As indicated in the February 1999 PHLS evaluation report, it was hoped that a
monitoring and evaluation reporting (MER) system would be functional in the four pilot 
countries by September of that year. This was to facilitate the tracking of multi-sectoral 
impacts and the maintenance of a permanent database. However, the system was judged
unsatisfactory by those offices, and is operating in only a few CARE countries. Thus, no 
comprehensive information is available on the impact of CARE programming. CARE
Peru reported that it is in the process of creating its own software for tracking multi￾sectoral impact. 
(e) Since 1993, CARE has collected information annually from all COs on basic issues
related to the organization’s mission, such as the number of people reached. This is done 
through Annual Project Information reports (APIs). Data from the most recent API report 
indicate that CARE had reached a total of 45.6 million “Net Direct Beneficiaries,” and
190 million “Indirect Beneficiaries.” However, data are not collected on the number of
households reached, nor it is possible to relate this information directly to PHLS
activities. 
(f) In February 2001, CARE produced “The MEGA Evaluation: A Review of Findings and
Methodological Lessons from CARE Final Evaluations, 1994-2000,” based on an
examination of 104 evaluation reports. This produced a CARE-wide view of what can be 
learned from project/program evaluations, as well as a critique of the methodologies
used. It was reported that both the CARE Board and the CI Program Working Group
have deemed this a significant instrument and process for synthesizing lessons learned
from evaluations, and have asked that it be repeated annually. 
Conclusions:
(a) The DME Capacity Assessment Toolkit developed by the PHLS Unit had a positive
effect on the degree of attention given to this important component of the grant, and
stimulated efforts by COs to better understand their own capacity and plan for
strengthening it. 
(b) The CARE Impact Guidelines published under this grant provide indicators and guidance 
for measuring change in the level of security at the household level, but do not address
the overall impact of multi-sectoral activities, nor the strengthening of organizational
capacity within CARE or among partner organizations.
(c) The absence of a baseline and subsequent data with which to measure the overall results
of the activities undertaken through this grant makes it impossible to gauge the precise
degree of achievement attained and mitigates against efficient program management.
Recommendations:
(a) CARE should develop, test, and make available to all COs tools for measuring multi￾sectoral impact within the household and for tracking results at levels beyond the
household. 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
(b) CARE should also develop approaches and tools for addressing and measuring changes
in institutional capacity both internally and among partner organizations as an important
component of the development process.
(c) Once new tools for measuring impact and capacity-building efforts are available, the
PHLS Unit should work with Regional Management Units to identify and train a cadre of 
persons in the use of these tools. 
7.5 Overall Management
Findings:
(a) The grant was managed by the PHLS Unit at CARE Atlanta, which also manages an
Institutional Support Assistance (ISA) grant from USAID/BHR/FFP. The five-year ISA
grant covers the period from FY 1999 to 2003, and provides approximately $1M per year 
“to refine food and household livelihood security (FS/HLS) conceptual models for Title
II programs; strengthen and develop tools and methods to diagnose, design and monitor 
program impact; develop the capacity of CARE staff and partners to program and
manage Title II resources; and identify opportunities to sustain the FS/HLS program.” 
(b) The four positions in the PHLS Unit were funded by a combination of resources from the 
PVC/MG and the FFP/ISA, and the objectives and activities carried out under these
grants were complementary. Both grants have supported the HLS approach. Since the
completion of the PVC grant, both the PHLS Unit Director and the HLS Coordinator are 
paid through a combination of ISA and unrestricted funds; the DME Coordinator is now
funded totally with unrestricted funds; and the position of Partnership Coordinator has
been discontinued.
(c) Under the ISA grant, all funds are awarded for use by headquarters, which is free to
identify the most appropriate activities and opportunities for building institutional
capacity. There is no requirement that pilot countries be stipulated in the grant, though a
good portion of ISA funding is used in the field. In general, ISA requirements are
narrower than those for the PVC grant, since they are tied to food security and nutrition
and may only be used in rural areas. Thus, it was reported that, while more
geographically restrictive, the PVC grant allows for greater programmatic creativity. It
was also felt that PVC’s current requirement that 50% of MG funds go to field activities
represents a considerable constraint when attempting to achieve institution-wide 
objectives.
(d) The formats and matrices used by PVC and FFP for MG and ISA grant proposals are
substantially different. The matrix used for ISAs provides a clearer picture of project
goals, strategic objectives and intermediate results, though indicators remain primarily at 
the output level. 
Conclusions:
(a) PHLS Unit managers of the PVC MG have been effective in the use of grant funds in
coordination with resources made available through the FFP ISA, and in dovetailing the
activities undertaken through the two grants.
(c) Given that both ISAs and MGs are aimed at strengthening grantee institutions, to
maximize results while creating greater efficiencies from the grantee’s perspective, it
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
would be helpful for PVC and FFP to seek to align more closely grant requirements and 
procedures.
Recommendation:
(a) PVC should explore with FFP the possibility of more closely aligning ISA and MG
requirements and procedures, the goal being to achieve greater synergy and the broadest 
development impact possible, which is in everyone’s interest. 
7.6 Sustainability
Findings:
(a) Since the fundamental purpose of this grant was to institutionalize the concepts related to 
PHLS on a CARE-wide basis, the question of sustainability is a function of whether or
not that was achieved.
(b) As discussed earlier, it is clear from the documents reviewed, the interviews conducted
and general observation that PHLS concepts have indeed been institutionalized and will
be sustained by the organization as major programming principles.
7.6.1 OVERALL SUSTAINABILITY SURVEY – N/A
7.7 Financial Management
7.7.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Findings:
(a) Judging from interviews with USAID officials in Washington and in the field, and with
relevant CARE representatives, grant finances appear to have been well managed, and
have presented no difficulties. 
7.7.2 LEVERAGING OTHER DONOR FUNDS
Findings:
(a) Project records indicate that CARE has more than matched the amount provided by this
grant.
(b) It was also found that PHLS approaches served to open the door to funding from other
donors, including DFID which for some time expressed resistance to the notion of multi￾sectoral programming targeting households.
7.7.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
Findings:
(a) While it is not possible to quantify the magnitude of change brought about by the
application of PHLS, the cost effectiveness of this technical approach is directly linked to 
the challenge of institutionalizing any new concept within an organization as large as
CARE. In that sense it may be said that the $3.8 million provided by the MG over five
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
years contributed significantly to changing the way a PVO with a balance sheet of over
$370 million operates.
7.7.4 REPERCUSSIONS OF “MATCHING” REQUIREMENT ON PROGRAM
Findings:
(a) The matching requirement was found to have virtually no repercussions in terms of the
program funded.
7.8 CARE’s Information Management
Findings:
(a) According to CARE and USAID interviewees, both progress and financial reports are
submitted in a timely fashion.
(b) Based on written exchanges and interviews at HQ and in the field, communication
between country offices and headquarters runs smoothly. The overall atmosphere was
found to be one of mutual respect and support.
(c) CARE has developed “lessons learned” at various intervals and with respect to the major 
components of the grant. (See Section 5.4 for a summary of global lessons learned.) 
(d) An effort was made to provide a MER system for the four pilot countries to record grant￾related data. However, that system was deemed unsatisfactory by the COs involved, and 
is not in operation in those countries. 
7.9 Logistics – N/A
7.10 Project Supervision
Findings:
(a) It was found that there had been significant turn-over among staff of the PHLS Unit in
Atlanta and in the pilot countries. Current staff appear to possess appropriate
management and technical skills, as required by their respective positions.
7.10 USAID Management
Findings:
(a) From all reports, USAID’s oversight and backstopping of this grant has been timely and
productive. The PVC CTO knows CARE well, and has made a number of field trips to 
observe program activities. He was also a member of the team that conducted the 1999
“final” evaluation of the original three-year grant, recommending that it be extended for
an additional two years.
8.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Taken together, the findings identified through the evaluation process lead to the following
overall conclusions:
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
· PHLS approaches have been successfully institutionalized within CARE and have
contributed to changing the way the organization addresses poverty alleviation.
· This grant also strengthened CARE USA’s ability to win support for the incorporation of
PHLS concepts in the policies and programs of CARE International (CI), a confederation of
10 separately registered and governed member organizations working together to end poverty 
and respond to emergencies around the world. CI members are Australia, Austria, Canada,
Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Different CI members are assigned lead roles in managing programs in over 60 countries in
which CARE operates, though other members also contribute. Therefore, the ramifications of 
grant-related activities go beyond the 36 countries in which CARE USA works.
· The incorporation of rights-based approaches into its philosophy is CARE’s next big
programming challenge. The process supported by this grant to institutionalize PHLS
concepts within CARE provides significant insights to help guide that effort.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
Annex A – Documents Consulted
Beckwith, Colin. No date. The Evolution of the Household Livelihood Security
Framework & Experiences to Date with its Application in Latin America and the
Caribbean. CARE International in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Beckwith, Colin. August 2000. The Evolution of CARE’s Conceptual Model of
Development. CARE International in Latin America and the Caribbean.
CARE Bolivia. October 1999. Mid Term Evaluation Child Survival XIII. 
CARE Mali. No date. Project for Partnership for Households Livelihood Security 
(PHLS) – PN33. Annual Report: October 2000-September 2001.
CARE Peru. No date. Fifth Year Report on the SMVH Pilot Project in CARE Peru: 
October 2000 - September 2001.
CARE Peru. No date. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security Program – Final
Report (Draft): October 1996 - September 2001.
CARE Peru. No date. Informe Evaluativo Final “Viajando en la lancha del Desarrollo”. 
Enfoque Seguridad de los Medios de Vida del Hogar en Zonas Peri Urbanas (S.M.V.H.). 
Masusa, Belén y Sur de Iquitos, Perú. Asociación de Comunicadores Sociales￾CALANDRIA.
CARE Peru. No date. Taller de Monitoreo y Evaluación de Proyectos y Programas. 
CARE-Huaraz. Hotel Monterrey, del 1 al 3 de Marzo del 2000.
CARE Peru. No date. El enfoque ASMVHY y la Estrategia de Apalancamiento y
Fortalecimiento de las Capacidades Locales. CARE-Puno. Programa de Fortalecimiento 
de la Gestión Local.
CARE Peru. October 1998. Implementación del Piloto SMVH- Celendin. Celendín,
Cajamarca.
CARE Peru. August 2000. Viajando en la lancha del desarrollo. Como vivimos en
Belén, Masusa y Zona Sur de Iquitos. Resultados del diagnóstico. CARE Peru-Loreto y 
la Municipalidad Provincial de Maynas.
CARE Peru. September 2000. La selección de contratistas para ejecutar proyectos de
saneamiento rural. Nota de Campo preparada por: CARE/PROPILAS/PAS. No.1.
CARE Peru. October 2000. Diagnóstico Rural Participativo – SMVH. Serie:
Instrumentos No.1. CARE y el Ministerio de Salud. Cajamarca.
CARE Peru. October 2000. Long-Range Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2001-2005.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
CARE Peru. November 2000. Diagnóstico de Capacidades en Diseño, Monitoreo y
Evaluación de CARE PERU. Informe Final. Setiembre a Noviembre del 2000.
CARE Peru. May 2001. Sistematización de los Procesos de Diagnóstico Rápido
Participativo de Seguridad de los Medios de Vida del Hogar (DRP/SMVH). Estudio de
Caso. Versión Final.
CARE Peru. August 2001. Sustainable Food Security in Peru. Title II FY 2002-2006. 
Development Activity Program Proposal.
CARE Peru. August 2001. La selección de Municipios y comunidades con el Enfoque
de la demanda. Nota de Campo preparada por: CARE y COSUDE No.2.
CARE Peru. October 2001. Plan de Monitoreo y Evaluación, Título II – AF 2001.
CARE Tanzania. 2001. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – 5th and Final
Progress Report. 
CARE USA. No date. Strategic Plan Review FY 97-99.
CARE USA. No date. Strategic Plan FY 2002-2006.
CARE USA. No date. PHLS Itranet Site <http://www.kcenter.com/phls/>.
CARE USA. No date. 2000 Annual Report.
CARE USA. No date. Partnership Field Guide – Draft.
CARE USA. No date. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – First Year
Annual Report (Oct 96-Sept 97). 
CARE USA. No date. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – Second Year
Annual Report (Oct 97-Sept 98).
CARE USA. July 2000. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – Third Annual 
Report
CARE USA. No date. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – Fourth Annual
Report (Oct 99-Sept 00).
CARE USA. No date. Strategic Plan Extension – FY 2000-2001.
CARE USA. November 1994. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security CARE
Matching Grant Proposal to USAID.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
CARE USA. March 1997. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – Detailed 
Implementation Plan (DIP) for 1996-1997.
CARE USA. 1999. Household Livelihood Security Analytical Framework for Program
Design, Implementation, and Evaluation.
CARE USA. February 1999. Partnership and Household Livelihood Security – Detailed 
Implementation Plan (DIP) for Phase II (Years 4 & 5) FY 00 – FY 01.
CARE USA. February 2000. Impact Guidelines.
CARE USA. January 2001. Preliminary Results of DME Capacity Assessments -
Synthesis Reports by Regional Management Units.
CARE USA. November 2001. Financial, HR and Administrative Aspects of Partnership.
DESCO. October 2001. Sistematización del Programa Fortalecimiento de la Gestión
Local (FOGEL). 
Education Development Center, Inc. No date. OD Funneling Tool – Draft. CARE/ARC 
OD Impact Study.
Education Development Center, Inc. No date. Partner Selection Tool – Draft. 
CARE/ARC OD Impact Study. 
Frankenberger, Timothy R. No date. Key Issues Related to Household Livelihood
Security – Comments from, Senior Food Security Advisor and Livelihood Security
Coordinator. CARE USA.
Frankenberger, Timothy R. March 1996. Measuring Household Livelihood Security: 
An Approach for Reducing Absolute Poverty. CARE USA.
Frankenberger, Timothy R. May 1998. Incorporating Problem Analysis Tools in
Household Livelihood Security Diagnosis. CARE USA.
Frankenberger, Timothy R. March 2000. A Brief Overview of Sustainable Livelihood
Approaches. CARE USA.
Frankenberger, Timothy R. September 2001. Institutionalization of Household
Livelihood Security in CARE: A Global Review – Draft. TANGO International.
Frankenberger, Timothy R. September 2001. Institutionalizing Household Livelihood
Security: Three Country Case Studies – Draft. TANGO International.
Frankenberger, Timothy R. and Jeanne Downen. No date. Institutional Strengthening
and Sustainable Livelihoods: What is the Connection? CARE USA.
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
Goldenberg, David A. February 2001. The MEGA Evaluation: A Review of Findings
and Methodological Lessons from CARE Final Evaluations, 1994-2000. CARE USA
Program Division.
Goodin, Joan. September 2000. The Impact of USAID/PVC Matching Grants on a
Leading US Private Voluntary Organization. Management Systems International.
Johri, Nalin. August 2001. Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Capacity Assessment –
Global Synthesis Report for CARE USA. CARE USA.
Rugh, Jim. November 1998. An Overview of Program Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation (DME) in CARE. CARE USA.
Sprechmann, Sofia and Emily Pelton. January 2001. Advocacy Tools and Guidelines –
Promoting Policy Change.
Stuckey, Joseph D. February 2001. CARE Mali Partnering Issues: An External
Perspective. CARE USA.
Stuckey, Joseph D. April 2001. Partnership Strategic Issues – Summary Report on
Sussex Workshop, November 14-17, 2000. CARE USA.
Stuckey, Joseph D., Barbara Durr, and Gwen M. Thomas. No date. Promising Practices 
- A Case Study Review of Partnership Lessons and Issues: What we are learning in
CARE. CARE USA.
Stuckey, Joseph D., Barbara Durr and Gwen M. Thomas. April 2001. Partnership
Principles: What We Have Learned About Partnering and Institutional Capacity Building 
Concepts. CARE USA.
TANGO International Inc. May 2001. Taller de Sistematización de los Procesos de
Diagnóstico Rápido y Holístico de SMVH en Perú y Bolivia. CARE Internacional -
Unidad de PHLS, Cusco, Perú 30-31 de mayo del 2001.
USAID. August 2001. Draft Scope of Work – PVC Matching Grants Evaluation of
CARE’s PHLS Program.
USAID. February 1999. CARE – Partnership and Household Livelihood Security –
Final Evaluation (Project No. 938-0158 Cooperative Agreement No. FAO-0158-A-6051-
00). 
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
Annex B: List of Persons Contacted
Name Organization & Title
Segundo Dávila CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Regional Director
Rosa Torres CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Zonal Chief
Beatriz Becerra CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Zonal Chief
Epifanio Bace CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Civil Society Advisor
Guido Gutierrez CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Income Generator Advisor
Julio Salcedo CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Representative
Health Promoter CARE Peru (Ayacucho), Health Promoter in Pampachacra
Irma Ramos CARE Peru (Lima), Coordinator Multisectoral Population Project
Ricardo Furman CARE Peru (Lima), Coordinator Learning and Evaluation
Raúl Ho CARE Peru (Lima), Rural Management and Environment
Jenny Menacho CARE Peru (Lima), Training Unit – Human Resources
Gladys Soto CARE Peru (Lima), Finance Manager
José Aquino CARE Peru (Lima), Administration and Human Resources Manager /
Coordinator of National Emergencies 
Carlos Cárdenas CARE Peru (Lima), Country Director
Carlos Mora CARE Peru (Lima), Program Director – Northern Border Program
Marusia Ruiz Caro CARE Peru (Lima), Advisor to Director of Programming
Gustavo D’Angelo CARE Peru (Lima), Assistant Country Director / Director of Programming
Isabel Hurtado CARE Peru (Lima), Learning and Research Specialist
Josefa Rojas CARE Peru (Lima), Manager of Local Development / Coordinator of Title
II Programs
Artemio Pérez CARE Peru (Lima), Institutional Strengthening / Alternative Development
Program
Geoffrey Chege CARE Tanzania, Country Director
Josephine Ulimwengu CARE Tanzania, Dar es Salam Area Coordinator
Isam Ghanim CARE USA (Atlanta), Director of Progam Assessment and Development
Patrick Carey CARE USA (Atlanta), Senior Vice President
Milo Stanojevich CARE USA (Atlanta), Chief of Staff
Colin Beckwith CARE USA (Atlanta), Deputy Regional Director for Latin America &
Caribbean
Jeanne Downen CARE USA (Atlanta), Director – Partnership and Household Livelihood
Security
Jim Rugh CARE USA (Atlanta), Coordinator – Program Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation
Jane Benbow CARE USA (Atlanta), Director of Basic & Girls Education
Eric Dupree-Walker CARE USA (Atlanta), Strategic Planning and Analysis Coordinator
Kevin Fitzcharles CARE USA (Atlanta), Director of Contracts & Grants
Miriam Choy USAID (Peru), Office of Strategic Planning and Results
Kristin Langlykke USAID (Peru), Coordinator of FIS Project, Office of Health, Population
and Nutrition
Luis Seminario USAID (Peru), Public Health Assessor, Office of Health, Population and
Nutrition
H:\INCOMING\06-26-MSI-final-MG-evaluation\PVC CARE Final MG Evaluation Report.doc
Martin Hewitt USAID (Washington, DC) BHR/PVC CTO 
Tim Frankenberger Consultant to CARE
Victor Bacini Ministry of Health (Peru), Director of CLAS (Local Health Committees)
Peregrina Morgan UNICEF, Education Coordinator (Peru)
Eduardo Ballón DESCO Consultant / FOGEL Evaluator (Peru)
Head of Association Head of Farmers Association in Luricocha District (Peru)
Mayor Mayor of Luricocha District (Peru) / Chief of Concertation Board
Mayor Mayor of Huanta Province (Peru) / Chief of Concertation Board
70 persons Representatives of Huanta Concertation Board (Peru): Education,
Business, Human Rights, Health areas, etc.
12 persons Representatives of CARE Peru (Ayacucho) partner organizations: 
handicraft network, tourism network, Mayor of Iguaín, Ministry of Health, 
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, various local NGOs.
Annex C
STATEMENT OF WORK
USAID / PVC 
MATCHING GRANTS FINAL EVALUATION 
OF CARE’S
PARTNERSHIP &
HOUSEHOLD LIVELIHOOD SECURITY PROGRAM 
(PHLS)
RE-DRAFTED BY JIM RUGH 10-1-01
BASED ON TEAM PLANNING MEETING 9-24-01
MATCHING GRANTS PROGRAM
OFFICE OF PRIVATE AND VOLUNTARY COOPERATION
BUREAU FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 1
EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK
CARE’s PHLS Matching Grant
Introduction: “Evaluation is a relatively structured, analytical effort undertaken selectively to
answer specific management questions regarding USAID-funded assistance programs or activities.” 
(USAID ADS chapter 202.4). An evaluation scope of work (SOW) is a plan for conducting an
evaluation. A good SOW provides clear directions to the evaluation team. 
PVC uses information from the evaluation of the programs it funds as part of a yearly results
reporting process. In order to get more consistent information across all Matching Grants (MG)
funded programs a standard evaluation format is used. The questions in this evaluation SOW
template are the questions that PVC is asking in all programs. The PVO and their local partners will 
need to review this template and add sections or questions that reflect their specific information
needs. [Original template wording in CG Times font. CARE-specific sections are inserted using 
Arial font.]
ELEMENTS IN THE SOW 
I. PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION
PVO name
Cooperative agreement number
Date of the evaluation
Country programs evaluated
II. PROGRAM BACKGROUND
Include the following information:
ß Provide basic information on the program that will be evaluated
Include a short statement on:
- History of the program
- Current implementation status 
- Local Partners
ß Provide Program Planning Matrix, logframe or the section from the program design
that lists:
ÿ Objective
ÿ Indicators
ÿ Data from baseline studies or description of the status of the intervention at
the beginning of the project.
Indicate what information and data are available for the external evaluator. PVC
already sent a document that will give you an excellent idea of the documents that
should be assembled and preparation needed prior to an evaluation. 
ß Include documentation of any changes that have taken place since the initiation of the 
program.
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 2
III. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
This section should contain two components --- (1) identify the evaluation audience and (2)
establish a set of evaluation questions that are relevant to each audience.
Outline the information needs of the evaluation audience (PVC, the PVO and local partners), 
and how each partner will use this information. 
ß Who wants the evaluation information,
ß What do they want to know,
ß What will the information be used for, 
ß When will it be needed, and 
ß How accurate must the information be?
The second objective for this evaluation is to help CARE to assess, articulate and learn from
experience in implementing the MG-funded PHLS initiative over the past five years. Though 
technically a summative evaluation (in the sense that the MG is finished), it can actually be
seen as a formative evaluation in the sense that CARE will continue to promote Partnerships, 
Household Livelihood Security, and enhanced program Design, Monitoring and Evaluation. 
Thus the lessons learned from this experience can be very informative in helping CARE
know how to continue into the future.
IV. THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS
ß PVC EVALUATION QUESTIONS. 
The following are a set of questions that the MG division is asking in all evaluations. These
questions relate to the objectives of the MG division and PVC’s strategic plan. The evaluator 
or evaluation team will assess the following program and institutional questions, provide
evidence, criteria for judgment and cite data sources. The evaluator(s) will assess both
headquarters and the country-level programs. 
The PVO will need to tailor the SOW to reflect their own and their local partners information 
needs by adding questions into each section, or adding additional sections if needed. 
A. Program Implementation
1. Assess progress towards each major objective 
ß Based on the logframe/program planning matrix, or statement of program purpose 
from the proposal, determine if the program objectives have been met, partially
met or were unattained. This is the single most important element the evaluation
must document and discuss. In addition to the discussion of project results in the 
text of the evaluation, this information should also be put into matrix format. List 
each objective, and key outcomes at the effects and/or impact level. In the text:
ÿ Identify major successes and constraints in achieving objectives and
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 3
unanticipated effects.
As part of this discussion comment on the PVO and their local
partners’ capacity to do program monitoring and evaluation. Note any 
constraints that prevented the PVO from measuring achievement of
program objectives. If the program does not have “baseline” and end￾of-project data from which judgements can be made about the
achievement of project objectives, this should be noted. (A more
detailed discussion of monitoring and evaluation should be covered in
Section III B of the report)
ÿ Identify if the project had a detailed implementation plan and the
familiarity of field staff with the project design, implementation plan and
monitoring and evaluation plan and data.
ß Assess effectiveness of models, approaches or assumption that underlie the
project. Has the approach been scaled-up in the project area or replicated
elsewhere in country or in other countries? 
ß Has the PVO engaged in program or policy advocacy? What was the focus of the 
advocacy and effects
ß Discuss what the PVO and local partners have “learned” implementing this
project. Identify if these “lessons learned” have been applied elsewhere (other
projects or countries)
2. Assess the status of partnership(s) with NGOs, community based organizations or
local level (or national) government. 
ß Include a chart that:
ÿ Categorizes local level partners. Are the partners:
NGOs, affiliates of the PVO, private or commercial groups, cooperatives,
community-based organizations, regional or local governments or
intermediate service organizations? 
ÿ Identify the type of mechanism employed with each partner,
i.e. MOU, sub-grant, contract.
ÿ Outline the roles, responsibilities and decision-making 
responsibilities of the partners. 
ÿ Identify the fiscal autonomy and amount of grant funds directly
managed in past year.
ß Assess the process that the PVO used to build and maintain local
partnerships.
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 4
ÿ Does the PVO have a partnership policy and approach to assess potential
partners?
ÿ Did the PVO do a formal assessment of local partner capacity and develop 
plans to build their capacity? 
ÿ Document change in local partner capacity.
ÿ What were the major constraints to effective partnerships?
ÿ Has the project increased the local partners’ access to information
technology? How?
ß Assess the local level partners’ satisfaction with the partnership with CARE.
ß Assess the PVO and their local partners’ involvement in local networks or
with intermediate service organizations.
ß What effect did participation in networks or service organizations have on the 
operational or technical capacity of the local partner? What would make it more
effective? Cite the major implementation lessons learned and recommendations
B. Management Capacity/Institutional Strengthening
The objective of the MG is to build PVO headquarters and field organizational and technical 
capacity. This section of the evaluation should assess change in the PVOs operational and
management capacity (organization, structure or quality of planning and management) as a
result of PVC grant. 
ß Strategic Approach and Program Planning 
 Have changes occurred in PVO headquarters capacity to: 
ÿ manage the planning process --- program renewal, strategy integration, project 
design; 
ÿ address over-arching program issues of replicability, scale-up, sustainability, 
ÿ Use performance data to forecast emerging trends and develop strategic plans?
ß Country Level Initiatives 
Identify and assess (if relevant), PVO contributions in the following areas: 
ÿ PVO cooperation and coordination with the USAID mission and other
development partner programs including natl./local government agencies; 
ÿ PVO advocacy activities: issues, goals, partners and results (Has the PVO
used project data for advocacy with the public sector or consistently shared
lessons learned with other PVOs in country or with non-partner NGOs?);
ÿ If the country or program area has a history of violent conflict, other man￾made/natural disasters, or food insecurity:
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 5
(a) PVO activities in conflict prevention, mitigation, 
resolution or post-conflict transition 
(b) PVO's contingency plan to ensure the safety of program 
staff and program continuity. 
ß Monitoring and Evaluation
Has the project implemented a process and put into place a sustainable system to monitor 
project performance and collect results (effects or impact) data? Provide evidence that
the project:
ÿ Established results oriented objectives and valid indicators for the technical
intervention and capacity building components in the project; collected valid
baseline data, and made realistic plans to collect end-of-project data and analyze
differences; analyzed performance data and used findings to manage the project.
Since this is a final evaluation, has the PVO acted on recommendations from the
mid-term evaluation?
ÿ Improved the knowledge and skills of field staff on how to measure
performance and analyze data.
ÿ Transferred monitoring and evaluation skills to local partners? 
- What changes have occurred in the capacity of the local partners to
measure program performance and impact?
- Have local partners increased M&E in their own activities (non-PVC￾funded programs) as a result of skills gained through this project? 
- What would accelerate the capacity of the local partners to document 
performance?
Determine if the PVO has used the MG to develop a sustainable capacity at headquarters and 
in the field offices to monitor project performance and measure effects and impact. Has
the PVO headquarters:
ÿ fostered analysis and self evaluation in country programs, or conducted
quantitative or qualitative analysis to refine interventions;
ÿ conducted periodic review of performance data by project personnel and taken 
actions as a result of review;
ÿ institutionalized performance monitoring and impact evaluation systems
developed with MG funds into other non-PVC grant funded programs, and; 
What were the biggest constraints to improving project monitoring and evaluation and
what are the recommendations for PVC and the PVO?
ß Sustainability 
ÿ Does the project have a system for addressing financial or operational
sustainability? 
ÿ Does the project have a business plan?
ÿ Describe the program elements, financial or operational, that are intended
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 6
to be sustained (objectives); the means for judging if the sustainability
objectives have been achieved (indicators); and sustainability
achievements and prospects for post-grant sustainability.
ÿ Identify if the project has any cost-recovery mechanisms, i.e., local level
financing or approaches to generate resources to support project
operations. Describe the achievements of these mechanisms and provide
an estimate of the magnitude of the system, for example, provide a ratio of 
costs recovered to operational expenses.
ß OTHER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 
Financial Management
ÿ Are adequate financial monitoring systems in place?
ÿ Has the program leveraged additional resources (beyond the match)?
ÿ How cost-effective is the technical approach?
Information Management
ÿ Comment on the utility and timeliness of PVOs required reports.
ÿ Has the PVO developed, disseminated and used “lessons learned” from the
project?
ÿ Information Technology
Logistics 
ÿ Comment on the adequacy and timeliness of PVOs material inputs.
ß Supervision/HRD 
ÿ Assess if there were sufficient staff with the appropriate technical and
management skills to oversee program activity at both headquarters and in the
field program
ß USAID Management
Comment on USAIDs oversight and backstopping of this cooperative agreement. 
CITE THE MAJOR MANAGEMENT LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V. EVALUATION METHODOLDOGY
Give a brief description of the evaluation methodology use. 
- Evaluation approach 
- Methodology and instruments 
- Criteria used for judgement, data source, and data analysis.
A. Approach
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 7
The PVO’s program was developed and funded prior to the Agency's emphasis on results￾oriented program designs and the development of PVC’s Strategic Plan. The data from all
PVC-funded programs is critical to PVC's ability to report on achievements against the
Office's Strategic Plan. Until all current PVC-funded programs have made the transition to a 
more results-oriented project plans, it will be necessary for the evaluator to conduct a team￾planning meeting with the PVO and local partners to:
® refine and consolidate the purpose-level objectives and outputs into a set of
results-oriented objectives; and
® Agree upon a set of appropriate indicators against which the evaluation will assess 
the achievement of project results outlined in the SOW and will be judged. And
where necessary, identify criteria for judgement. (See above list of questions.)
B. Methodology
The Evaluation Team will:
® explain the appropriateness of using the data collection approaches; 
® document data sources (data constraints, quality, etc.); and
® Provide, a copy (electronic or paper) of all primary data collected and analysis 
performed. 
VI. TEAM COMPOSITION AND PARTICIPATION
INSTRUCTIONS:
Based on tasks outlined and the emphasis of each evaluation section determine skills needed 
and who will participate in the evaluation team ---- PVO, NGO and AID staff. Outline:
- Roles and responsibility of team leader and members
- Language requirements
- Technical expertise, or country experience
- Evaluation methods and data collection expertise
VII. SCHEDULE
INSTRUCTIONS:
Determine: 
- Time needed at headquarters
- Time needed in the field 
- Time necessary for report writing 
VIII. REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION REQUIREMENTS
INSTRUCTIONS:
- This SOW will serve as the outline of the report 
- Delivery schedule
- Review/revision policy
CARE PHLS MG Evaluation SOW 8
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 9
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 1
Annex D: Detailed Implementation Plan Tables
DIP for Phase I: Submitted to USAID/PVC in March 1997, covers the original three-year grant period, 1996-1999. The information 
included in this Table is based on the matrix provided as an annex to the DIP.
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Goals: 1. To enhance CARE’s capacity to improve HLS of more than 18 million poor families on various points of relief to development continuum; and
 2. To enhance CARE’s sectoral programs at the community level through strengthened local partners.
Objective 1: To operationalize the concepts of HLS CARE-wide through an effective and locally appropriate M&E approach, and to disseminate lessons learned 
 to CARE COs, colleagues
Project designs 
address HLS in
integrated problem
analysis
Non-specific Integrated project designs have been
followed in Tanzania (Mwanza
Livelihood Project and urban project);
Title II projects in Bolivia and Peru; and 
PDRT in Mali; Livelihood projects have
been designed and implemented in more
than 20 CARE COs
Yes Not all COs follow the same
approach. Some have designed
multi-sector projects while others
have had sector projects that have
been designed holistically. Both
approaches are appropriate
Yes
Rapid Livelihood 
Security Assessment
(RLSA) conducted in
all new program areas
No # of COs
specified
RLSAs have been conducted in Tanzania 
(3), Peru (5), Bolivia (2), and Mali (1).
RLSAs have also been conducted in
India, Nepal, Ethiopia, Honduras,
Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, 
Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi,
Zimbabwe, Sudan, Angola, Kenya,
Somalia, Togo, Uganda, Sri Lanka,
Madagascar, South Africa, Lesotho 
Partially Not all of the RLSAs have been
successful. The approach has
improved over time. In some cases, 
there was not adequate planning for 
the survey. In other cases,
information was not well applied.
The main weakness was how to
translate the information into
appropriate follow-up design.
Partially
Baselines carried out
will reflect
statistically valid 
cross-sectoral M&E
information and
analysis
No # specified;
Analysis in Year
3
Mali, Tanzania, Peru, Bolivia. Cross￾sectoral baselines also carried out in
Bangladesh, Nepal, Malawi, Madagascar, 
Kenya, Honduras, Guatemala
Partially The baselines that have been
carried out are of differential
quality. They have improved over
time. No overall analysis done.
Partially
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 2
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Long Range Strategic
Plan (LRSP) of 4 pilot 
countries reflect
household livelihood
perspective
4 pilot countries All 4 pilot country LRSPs use HLS as the 
framework. LRSPs that have been written 
in the 5 years all have HLS and
partnerships reflected in them. The
regional LRSPs for Latin America,
Southern and West Africa, and East
Africa also have HLS embedded into the
plans. The CARE Program Division 
LRSP incorporates HLS, as does the
CARE USA LRSP. The CARE USA
LRSP manual addresses HLS as an
organizing principle.
Partially In the past, the LRSPs tried to use
HLS as an umbrella concept to
gather all projects under one roof
rather than use the framework in a 
strategic way. Currently, the
framework is being used in a much 
more strategic way to improve
targeting and focus programming.
Yes
Analysis of M&E
systems in CARE
COs 
Analysis of all
COs
DME Capacity Assessments conducted in 
4 PHLS Pilots and subsequently in almost 
all CARE USA-led COs.
Yes (See
“DME CA
Synthesis 
Report”)
The reports reveal that a great deal 
of work needs to be done to build
capacity in the country offices. It
has become recognized that new
staff with the necessary skills need 
to be hired.
Yes
ACTIVITIES FOR OBJECTIVE 1
HLS training
provided to
CARE CO staff 
& NGO
partners
No indicator Non-specific A cadre of trainers including CARE staff, 
consultants, and staff from CRS,
Technoserve and World Vision were
trained to provide technical guidance in
HLS assessments and program design.
In addition to these formal trainings,
PHLS staff participated in multiple
international forums (DFID, ODI, WFP,
FAO, Intl Famine Center, Ireland; IFPRI, 
Society for Applied Anthropology; Amer. 
Anthropology Assoc., Tulane, Tufts,
Baylor, Brown, Emory and Harvard
Universities, Univ. of Arizona, Peace
Corps, World Bank; World Food Summit; 
World Food Prize annual meeting, ICRW, 
etc. 
Yes. 
(Training 
manuals have 
been 
developed 
for East
Africa, and
Asia. A CD￾ROM of all
PHLS 
training and
conceptual 
materials 
provided to
all trainers.)
Although the quality of the trainers 
was not uniform, most assessments
were done in a consistent manner. 
In COs where the consultants were
inexperienced, the quality of the
assessments and project designs
were not very good. Quality
control is an issue that needs
constant attention. The content of
the training needs to be continually 
updated. 
Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 3
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
HLS 
Conference in
Asia
Conference Reports 1 Conference
held
India 1/98. Yes. (See
conference 
report.)
The conference identified many of
the issues that need to be addressed 
to further operationalize HLS, such 
as decision trees for when
assessments are needed, appropriate 
sampling for RLSAs, and how to do 
cross-sectoral problem analysis. 
Yes
Define HLS
Tools and
Guidelines for
Program 
Manual
HLS Program Manual 
published
Manual 
completed
Manual sent gratis to pilot COs and Title 
II countries; available to other COs for
$350
Yes. (See 2-
binder set of
overheads.)
This manual needs to be updated as 
more experience comes in. It is
hard to have a generic manual that 
fits all the different contexts that
CARE works in.
Yes
HLS Workshop
in Latin
America (LA)
Proceedings from
HLS workshop
Workshop held 3 LA Technical Committee workshops 
held on HLS. The Technical Committee 
was comprised of CARE staff from 8
Latin American COs.
Yes. (See
reports)
These LA workshops provided an
excellent forum for exchanging
ideas and experience. The major
problem was that different people
attended different workshops so
some of the same ground was
covered repeatedly.
Yes
Participate in at 
least 2 RLSAs:
Asia, E/W
Africa
RLSA reports for 2
pilot countries
Participation in
RLSAs in Mali
and Tanzania
Tanzania (Yes); Mali (with consultant);
Peru and Bolivia (helped plan the
assessment). 
As noted above, PHLS staff participated
in numerous RLSAs worldwide supported 
by the grant.
Partially. 
(See 
Tanzania Dar 
es Salaam 
Urban LSA
report.)
In addition to the RLSA, Mali did
multi-sectoral baselines on existing 
clusters of projects.
Yes
On-going 
portfolio 
analysis to
identify 
sectoral best
practices
Annual project
reports, 4 CO offices
Analysis 
completed for 4
COs
Annual meetings of pilot countries held to 
capture lessons learned from each of the
pilots to share with other country offices.
Partially. 
(See reports.)
Most pilots were stronger in one
area than another. For example, the 
work in Peru on assessments was
good; the work on DM&E in Mali
was good; the urban work in
Tanzania was good; Bolivia
fostered strong municipal
government partnerships.
Partially
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 4
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Develop case
studies on
implementation 
of HLS
4 HLS case studies Non-specific Peru developed lessons learned 
document. Documents developed for the
other three pilots
Partially. 
(See reports.)
HLS work was much more
developed in Peru and Tanzania
than in Bolivia and Mali. This was 
primarily because of Senior
management support.
Partially
Evaluate 
performance of
M&E systems
in COs
M&E Survey Reports Evaluation 
completed for all
COs
DME Capacity Assessments completed in 
almost all USA-led COs
Yes. (See
“DME CA
Global 
Synthesis” 
report.)
Considerable difference exists
across the COs with regards to
DM&E capacity. Much more work
needs to be done.
Yes
Objective 2: To build CARE’s ability to partner with local organizations and capacity of partners to deliver relevant services efficiently, effectively and sustainably
Review & synthesis of 
existing partnership
tools
Review &
Synthesis 
completed
API tool to measure CO partnerships
worldwide 1996; Partnership Guidelines
1997; Partnership Policy 1997; 3-part 
Partnership Study, consisting of a
bibliographic reference guide; Lessons
Learned, and Recommendations for the
Future, 2001; Partnership Field Guide,
2001.
Yes Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 5
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Incorporation of
lessons learned into 
future project design
Non-specific Each pilot did partnership reviews and
partnership guidelines; each incorporated 
partnership objectives into CO long-range 
strategic plans; several new projects
partnership focused, such as urban project 
in Tanzania, Bolivia and Peru's Title II
projects, and Mali's civil society
strengthening activities. 
Yes. (see
Annual 
reports; 
LRSPs, 
project 
proposals.)
The first project coordinator in
Tanzania in experienced. The
partnership coordinator in Bolivia
left halfway through the project. In 
Mali the national staff partnership
coordinator was transferred to
CARE Ghana. In CARE HQ, there 
was a 1 1/2 year gap in the
Partnership Coordinator and some
people in regional senior
management were opposed to
filling the position again. Staff
turnover in COs and HQ has been a 
problem. The Partnership
consultant did very strong work the 
last two years. At present there is
no permanent partnership post at
HQ
Yes
Effective use of
partnership strategy
and tools in diagnostic 
activities by 4 pilot
countries
Not defined Partnership assessments have been done
in almost all project designs worldwide.
Partially CARE is still learning how to
develop mutual partnerships,
especially with local NGOs, where
it must strike a balance between
partnering, mentoring, and
overseeing contractual obligations. 
The accountability required of
grantees in most USAID projects
makes flexible partnerships difficult 
at times.
Yes
LRSPs of 4 pilot
countries includes
partnership 
perspective
4 LRSPs
completed
All 4 LRSPs do have a partnership
component. The majority of CARE USA 
COs have a partnership objective in their 
LRSPs. The partnership component has
been incorporated into the CARE USA
LRSP manual.
Yes Variance due to changes in staffing, 
particularly national staff. See
above.
Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 6
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Creation of Learning
Environment for
Partnership in CARE
Not defined Workshop for CARE International offices 
and COs held in UK to update the
concept of partnership, to get agreement
on partnership principles, and to
accumulate important case studies that
can be used to disseminate lessons
learned. Partnership Coordinator
participated in CARE-wide forums such
as CARE USA LRSP and meetings of the 
CARE Board of Directors.
Partially Yes
ACTIVITIES FOR OBJECTIVE 2
Incorporate 
guideline 
questions into
new LRSPs
LRSPs # of LRSPs
unspecified
See above Partially Yes
Test tools in
COs with
existing LRSPs
Non-specific See above No Partially
Conduct local
lessons learned
workshop
Workshop 
Proceedings
One workshop
conducted
UK workshop - see above Yes Yes
Organize /
Deliver 
Partnership 
Conferences in
Asia, S/W
Africa, and
Latin America
Conference reports;
Organizational 
Development Report
(Spanish & French)
4 Conferences
conducted
Asia conference held in Sri Lanka, 1997; 
S/W Africa held in Senegal, 1998; Latin 
America held in Atlanta, 1998
Yes Valuable for sharing lessons
learned and motivating staff;
however, CARE has learned that
individual conferences require
substantial support and follow-up to 
achieve learning objectives.
Yes
CO Staff
training in
partnership
4 CO cross visits/year; 
Training Reports
12 CO cross visits 
carried out 
2 cross visits between Bolivia and Peru; 1 
between Bolivia and Mali; 1 between
Mali and Peru; 
Yes. (See
annual PHLS
grant 
reports.)
Not necessary to have as many
cross visits as anticipated since
PHLS Atlanta instituted annual
meeting of pilot countries. All
pilots visited and shared annual
lessons in Mali, Bolivia, and
Atlanta.
No
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 7
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Testing and
dissemination 
of new tools &
methodologies
Not specified Non-specific See above - Review and Synthesis of
Existing Tools. All tools tested in pilots
and disseminated CARE-wide.
Yes Yes
Refinement of
partnership web 
site
Not specified Refined 
partnership web
site operating
Part of PHLS web site which has been
established
Yes. (See
<http://www.
kcenter.com/
phls/>)
First partnership website, Linking
Partners, established 1997. 
However, PHLS unit did not have
adequate staff to maintain, so
website became dormant in 1998. 
Now included in new PHLS
website along with HLS and DME.
Partially
Develop CO
self-assessment 
tools for
partnership 
progress
Not specified Tools developed Partnership Manual 1997 included tools. 
New API measurement tool developed in 
2000. Updated tools issued 2001.
Yes Yes
Produce/dissem
inate 
partnership 
case studies
4 partnership case
studies/year
12 case studies Mali, Tanzania, Bolivia, Peru in Phase I. 
Somalia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Madagascar, 
Zambia, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nepal in 
Phase II. 
Yes. (See
report, 
"Promising 
Practices: A
Case Study
Review of
Partnership 
Lessons and
Issues".)
Yes
Review policy
guidelines
Partnership Strategy
document;
Revised Policy
Guidelines
Guidelines 
reviewed
See above - 1977 documents Yes Yes
Assess key
information 
needs by region
Not specified Assessment 
completed for
each region
Done through regional Partnership
Workshops
Yes. (See
workshop 
reports.)
Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 8
OBJE
CTIVE 
/ACTI
VITY
INDICATO
R
PACD 
TARGE
T
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for Variance Target 
Met?
Hire and
promote staff
with 
partnership 
skills
Adjusted staff project
profiles
Non-specific Each pilot and HQ hired partnership
coordinator, but not all posts retained 
Partially Pilots and other COs realized that
specific relationship-building skills
were needed for successful
partnerships.
Partially
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 9
DIP for Phase II: Submitted to USAID/PVC in February 1999, covering the two-year grant extension period, FY2000-FY2001. The 
information in this Table is based on the commitments described in the narrative of the DIP, which did not include a matrix similar to 
the one annexed to the first DIP. 
OBJEC
TIVE 
/ACTIV
ITY
INDICATOR PACD 
TARGET
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for 
Variance
Target 
Met?
Goal: Based on the HLS framework, improve the analysis, design, monitoring & evaluation of CARE programs, especially those implemented with partners, in 
 order to achieve demonstrable impact on the households of target communities. 
Objective 1: To make grant elements more truly cross-cutting while strengthening the three key elements of the “PHLS approach:” 
Tools and guidelines developed or
refined on problem analysis,
evaluations/baselines, project
design/redesign, partner selection,
multi-sectoral programming,
selection criteria for geographical
areas, and HLS assessments
Tools and guidelines
completed
a) Baseline & Evaluation
Manual still being developed. 
Design Manual available in draft. 
MER guidelines developed and
still being refined. Impact
Evaluation Initiative guidelines
developed.
b) 6 short papers on
Operationalizing HLS were
written and disseminated; a paper 
on problem analysis was written
and disseminated; HLS
assessments guidelines
disseminated for rural and urban
contexts; HLS training and
facilitation manual
c) Partnership tools developed -
see 3- part study previously
mentioned.
Partially a) Difficult to finalize
some DME
documents because of
need to incorporate
continually evolving
concepts and
approaches. Final
DME products,
though delayed, will
be high quality and fit 
current CARE needs.
Partially
Activities for Objective 1
Provide format
to capture case
studies
Format developed to document
lessons learned and HLS program
implementation in 4 pilot countries 
Format provided Outline for LL documents
developed in conjunction with
LARMU
Yes Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 10
OBJEC
TIVE 
/ACTIV
ITY
INDICATOR PACD 
TARGET
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for 
Variance
Target 
Met?
Document 
lessons learned
on HLS
operationalizatio
n in the field
Case studies carried out in pilot
countries 
4 case studies 
provided by pilot
countries
Peru developed LL document.
Lessons learned documents
generated for other three countries 
and the evolution of HLS for
CARE
Partially Not all countries were 
incorporating HLS in
its entirety due to the
reluctance of some
senior management to 
accept the new
conceptual approach.
Partially
Objective 2: To spread to other COs the approaches taken by the 4 pilot countries.
Solid models developed in the 4
pilot countries that serve to spread
PHLS approaches to other COs
4 case studies
completed, including
principles, tools, and
guidelines for HLS
program 
implementation.
A synthesis document was written 
that tried to capture the lessons
learned
See 
"Operationali
zing HLS"
and other
lessons 
learned 
documents
It was felt that the 4 
pilots represented the
cross section of the
types of COs that exist 
in CARE. Because the 
quality of staff varies,
the level of
institutionalization 
will vary as well. Peru 
is the best example of
a well-integrated 
PHLS approach. 
No
ACTIVITIES FOR OBJECTIVE 2
Continue and
intensify the
dissemination of
models from the
4 pilot countries
No indicator Non-specific “Models” not developed in the 4
pilot countries. Some
dissemination of lessons learned 
PHLS Unit did note
depend only on
information form pilot 
countries.
Partially
Objective 3: To institutionalize partnership as a way of working within CARE.
Not specified Institutionalization of
partnership 
accomplished
Partnership is central to CARE’s
vision (“a partner of choice”) and 
a main theme in CARE USA’s
2002 – 2006 LRSP (one of the 3
strategic directions is constituency 
building, which builds on the
work done in partnership).
Yes. (CARE 
International 
LRSP; 
CARE USA
LRSP; all
CO LRSPs.)
Partnership has been
integrated as a core
principle of CARE
programs. 
Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 11
OBJEC
TIVE 
/ACTIV
ITY
INDICATOR PACD 
TARGET
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for 
Variance
Target 
Met?
Activities for Objective 3
Document the
common 
conceptual 
approaches used
among the 4
pilots to build
consensus on
definitions of the 
types and
functions of
partner 
relationships
Documentation emphasizes the link 
between HLS and partnership and
distinguishes between partnerships
to improve household needs
attainment and efforts aimed at
building social capital
Documentation 
completed
The conceptual development of
partnership concepts has evolved
considerably over the last 2 years, 
and is well documented in the last 
5 documents produced by the
Partnership Coordinator. In
addition, a Partnership Field
Guide was recently developed. 
Yes. (See
“Promising 
Practices, 
“Partnership 
Concepts”, 
“Partnership 
Recommenda
tions” and
Partnership 
Field Guide”. 
)
This activity is not
confined to/dependent
upon the 4 pilot
countries.
Yes
Identify staff
skills needed to
implement the
different types of
partnership 
activities
Issues encountered by pilot
countries in staff training for
partnership documented, including 
conflict resolution strategies and
negotiation skills
Issues documented Consensus was reached at the
meeting in the UK on the common 
principles of partnering. These
principles will require different
types of staff skills than currently
exist in many CARE COs. CARE 
is presently reviewing core
competencies for all staff and the
partnership perspective is being
considered as part of that review. 
Yes What is needed is a
staff review in each
CO in relation to the
principles.
Yes
Identify, test and 
disseminate new
organizational 
development 
approaches and
tools for building 
partnership skills 
among staff
Not specified New OD approaches
& tools disseminated
See above. Also, CARE has
recently completed a study
looking at how CARE can change 
its systems to become a better
partner. 
Yes. (See
“Financial, 
HR and
Administrati
ve aspects of
Partnerships.
”) 
Program Department
is working with
Finance, 
Administration and
HR Departments to
implement 
recommendations in
the study. 
Partially
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 12
OBJEC
TIVE 
/ACTIV
ITY
INDICATOR PACD 
TARGET
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for 
Variance
Target 
Met?
Disseminate 
lessons learned 
about indicators
and 
methodologies 
for measuring
progress in
capacity 
building, 
institutional 
development and 
partnership 
Indicators identified and
methodologies developed for
measuring progress in capacity
building, institutional development
and partnership, and tested in the 4 
pilot countries
Lessons learned re
these indicators &
methodologies 
disseminated to all
COs
CARE participated extensively in 
NGO forums in Washington DC
that discussed capacity-building 
measures.
CARE and ARC commissioned a
joint study on Organizational
Development (with one case study 
from CARE and one from ARC),
and three papers were produced –
OD Funneling Tool, Literature
Review and Partners Selection
Tool. 
Yes The PHLS grant
contributed to
building institutional
capacity. 
Unfortunately, that
was not measured. 
CARE realized shortly 
after the grant began
that it did not know
enough to build
capacity in local
partners. CARE is in 
a better position now,
after all it has learned, 
to build and measure
capacity in partners.
No
Objective 4: To strengthen Design, Monitoring & Evaluation (D+M&E) in the 4 pilot countries, as well as CARE-wide using an HLS perspective
Tools and procedures developed
and promoted, including templates
for TORs to support M&E efforts,
and project information systems
Non-specific MEGA evaluation report
recommendations regarding
evaluation TORs
Yes More detailed
evaluation TOR
templates will be part
of forthcoming
Baseline & Evaluation 
Guide
Partly
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 13
OBJEC
TIVE 
/ACTIV
ITY
INDICATOR PACD 
TARGET
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for 
Variance
Target 
Met?
Activities for Objective 4
Develop case
studies of 
projects showing
the elements
required to
measure impact,
and share with
other CARE
countries and
partner 
international 
NGOs
Not specified No specific # of case
studies produced or
shared with other
COs; no # of partner
int’l. NGOs specified
for dissemination.
9 case studies completed in 1999
as part of Impact Evaluation
Initiative (IEI). Widely
disseminated and read throughout 
CARE (and beyond).
Yes Yes
Conduct 
D+M&E needs
assessments in
each pilot
country
Current capacities assessed and
determination made about what is
required to develop a D+M&E
strategy and comprehensive system
4 D+M&E needs
assessments 
conducted
Begun 6/99 in Tanzania; 2/00
Bolivia; 9/00 Mali; 12/00 Peru.
Yes Yes
Each pilot
country 
identifies or hires 
a person
responsible for
leadership of
D+M&E at the
country level
Person identified in each pilot
country
D+M&E person in
place in 4 pilot
countries
Yes in Peru, Mali and Tanzania. 
No unique DME specialist in
Bolivia.
Yes 75%
Develop a cadre
of D+M&E
trainers
Not specified Cadre of D+M&E
trainers developed
Selected consultants given TOT
right after IEI workshop 5/99
Yes Yes
Condensed summary of CARE PHLS-II DIP 14
OBJEC
TIVE 
/ACTIV
ITY
INDICATOR PACD 
TARGET
ACCOMPLISHMENT Data 
Verified?
Explanation for 
Variance
Target 
Met?
Adapt the M&E
approach used in 
Mali to enhance
the M&E
standards in the
3 other pilot
countries
M&E capacity in Tanzania, Bolivia 
and Peru strengthened 
Mali approach
adapted and M&E
standards in the other 
3 countries enhanced
M&E systems strengthened in
Peru and Tanzania; not so in
Bolivia
Yes 75%
Enhance the
M&E capacities
of CARE and its
partners
Methods used in the 4 pilot
countries shared with other COs
Non-specific Important part of DME Capacity
Assessments in all Cos was
Capacity Enhancement; each CO
developed strategies for long-term 
further capacity development
Yes The IEI + DME
Capacity Assessment
+ DME Strategies
have proven to be the
most successful 
strategy for enhancing 
DME capacity in
CARE. Not
dependent upon the 4
pilot countries
Yes