MID-TERM EVALUATION 
FOOD AID MANAGEMENT 
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 
For the period covering 
October 1, 1998 – March 31, 2001 
For 
CARE 
And 
The U. S. Agency for International Development 
Bureau for Humanitarian Response 
OFFICE OF FOOD FOR PEACE 
By 
John P. Mason, PhD. 
Consultant 
in collaboration with 
FAM Staff & Membership 
May 29, 2001 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 Page
 
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 
A. Background 1 
B. Purpose 2
C. Methodology 2 
D. Organization of the Report 4 
Chapter 2: Key Findings – Strategic Role of FAM 5 
A. Overall Progress 5
B. Strengthening Capacity in Design, Monitoring, and Implementation of 
Title II 8 
C. Promoting Efficient and Effective Use of Food Resources 10 
D. Building Institutional Capacity 10
E. Unifying Title II PVOs in Meeting Food-Aid Challenges 11
F. General Constraints 11
G. USAID/FFP Perspective 13
Chapter 3: Key Findings – Dissemination and Sharing of State-of-the-Art 
 Food Aid/Security Practices 15 
A. Working Groups 15 
B. Workshops and Training Tools 20 
C. Food Security Resource Center 22 
D. Other Collaboration 27 
Chapter 4: Key Findings – Organizational Impact 29 
 A. Coordinating Members 29 
 B. Institution Strengthening 30 
 C. FAM Management 31 
E. Working Group Coordination 32 
F. Sustainability Issues 33
Chapter 5: Conclusions, Lessons Learned, and Recommendations 35 
 
A. Conclusions 35 
 B. Lessons Learned and Recommendations for FAM & FAM Members 36 
Annexes 
1. Scope of Work 
ii
2. Persons Contacted 
3. Documents Reviewed
4. Questionnaires Utilized 
5. Indicator Performance Tracking Table 
6. FAM Collaborative Training Activities 
7. FAM Members Contribution to Food Forum 
8. Documents Produced by FAM under its ISA 
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Undertaken in March-April, 2000, this mid-term evaluation of the Food Aid Management (FAM) 
Institutional Support Assistance Program agreement between CARE and USAID/Food for Peace (FFP), 
covered the period October 1, 1998 to March 31, 2001. Its purpose was to assess FAM’s progress in
meeting its objectives of enhanced food-aid practices, knowledge base, and collaboration. 
FAM’s coordination of 17 PVOs, mostly Title II implementers, has resulted in improved food-aid 
practices, including monetization and pesticide guidance, regulations and frameworks for Title II 
PVO proposals, implementation plans, and results reporting. Dissemination of knowledge has 
been done through its website, library, Food Forum, four Working Groups, thematic workshops, 
technical tools, and other interactions with the membership. 
FAM offers economies of scale to USAID/FFP, driven by PVO demand for state-of-the-art 
knowledge. The present level of collaboration among the membership speaks well for FAM’s
success in coordinating geographically and operationally diverse organizations. Simpler 
constraints are the usual time and money ones, while a more complex challenge is for FAM not to 
be ‘taken for granted’; to find a way to receive credit for its work. Diffuse functions and a 
facilitating vs. implementing role, alongside a less-than-favorable perception of FAM’s 
contribution by FFP, often results in others receiving credit for FAM’s accomplishments. 
FAM has contributed importantly to strengthening design, implementation, and monitoring of its 
members’ Title II programs. This is accomplished largely through FAM-supported working 
groups (WGs) in Monetization (MWG), Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E), Local Capacity
Building (LCB), and Environment (E), which, in turn carry out workshops and design field tools 
for Title II implementers, as well as creating important mediums of exchange. While the MWG 
and EWG are a bit further ahead of the others in development of field applications, the M&E WG 
has two tools already developed and in use. The LCB WG has begun to develop its tools. 
The Food Security Resource Center (FSRC) is a second key to FAM’s achievements, contributing
much of the knowledge base and providing continuous communications with the membership, 
especially the WGs. It is perceived in a most favorable way by its many users. 
Recommendations include:
• FAM member PVOs should develop a framework for a plan and assign a committee to 
explore the continuation of FAM’s key functions into the future with the Steering 
Committee (SC). 
• The Steering Committee should call a meeting to openly explore FFP’s less-than￾favorable perception of FAM’s value with the membership, then the SC should meet with 
FFP to discuss how to ameliorate the situation. 
• FAM coordinators and local members of the SC should organize regular meetings with 
FFP to communicate openly, so as to ensure that FAM is fulfilling FFP’s needs. 
• FAM members, in cooperation with FAM staff, should develop an initiative to 
inform their staff and constituencies of the services available to them through 
FAM, so that they are able to recognize FAM’s contribution in terms of food 
aid/security standards development and information exchange resources. 
• WGs should agree at the outset on a product or a plan that will engage all members. 
Where feasible, WGs should be facilitated by technical experts on-staff with member 
organizations who also have team building skills, preferably. 
iv
• The MWG, M&E and LCB WGs should consider use of the EWG’s TOT approach, 
where appropriate, for planning subsequent workshops. In a related matter, the SC 
should request formal recognition of the EWG from FFP. 
• The SC should support FAM coordinators in organizing resources to ensure completion 
of the online version of the FSRC Bibliographic Database. 
• The SC should speed up the search for resources (institutional and/or financial) to digitize 
the FSRC library. 
v
Chapter 1 
INTRODUCTION 
This report documents the mid-term evaluation of the Food Aid Management 
Institutional Support Assistance Program. The assessment was undertaken in 
Washington, D.C. from March 7 through April 13, 2001. The mechanism evaluated is an 
Institutional Support Assistance agreement made between the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, Office of Food for Peace and CARE, the grant holder. The 
agreement period covered by the evaluation is October 1, 1998 – March 31, 2001. 
A. Background 
Food Aid Management (FAM) was set up in 1989 by five U.S. private and voluntary 
organizations (PVOs) to “promote the efficient and effective use of food aid resources to 
help alleviate hunger and contribute to food security.” Beginning in September 1998, 
USAID and FAM worked out a five-year follow-on Institutional Support Assistance 
(ISA) agreement. That agreement was aimed at supporting the PVOs in their P.L. 480, 
Title II-funded food aid programs. Now 17 members strong, FAM facilitates the 
membership in fulfilling three objectives.1
 
The FAM initiative was created by Title II PVOs largely as a forum in which they could 
collaborate and exchange food aid/security program information. Specifically, its 
members saw and continue to see FAM as a uniquely valuable venue for exchange of 
new tools and best practices. Members’ commitment is evidenced in part in their 
provision to FAM of a portion of their own Institutional Support Assistance (ISA) grants 
(those who hold them), as well as their time and effort. Members also value FAM as a 
forum in which PVOs working in food aid/security and FFP can share information and be 
receptive to each others’ needs and perspectives.
FAM’s objectives are to a) facilitate and promote the development of food aid standards; 
b) promote the food aid and food security knowledge base of PVOs through information 
exchange and coordination; and c) facilitate collaboration between PVOs, USAID, and 
appropriate development and humanitarian professionals by organizing discussion fora. 
In combination, the objectives contribute to a higher-level, strategic objective: namely 
that of the Office of Food for Peace (FFP). The specific objective is “increased 
effectiveness of FFP’s Partners in carrying out Title II development activities with 
measurable results related to food security with a primary focus on household nutrition 
and agricultural productivity.” The objectives also contribute to an ‘intermediate result,’ 
 
1
 FAM members include Adventist Development & Relief Agency, Africare, ACDI-VOCA, American Red 
Cross, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Counterpart International, Feed the Children, Food for the Hungry 
International, International Relief & Development, Mercy Corps International, OIC International, Project
Concern International, Save the Children Federation, TechnoServe, World SHARE, and World Vision.
1
which is strengthened capabilities of PVOs to design, monitor, and support food 
aid/security programs. 
B. Purpose 
The general purpose of this mid-term evaluation, derived from the Scope of Work (see 
Annex 1), is “to assess the progress in achieving planned results and to refine program
activities and targets accordingly.” A related purpose is to determine if the FAM 
program is being implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner and whether 
performance is on track. More specific purposes and criteria used in guiding the 
evaluation are outlined later in the text of the report. 
C. Methodology 
Methods used in the evaluation include key informant interviews, a focus group 
discussion, open-ended questionnaires, site visits at FAM, and review of documents. A 
satisfactory degree of contact was achieved with the FAM membership and workshop 
participants, as seen in the table on the following page. Where the response rate is low, it 
was due mainly to non-working email addresses of international workshop participants. 
The low rate was not viewed as critical to the overall study, however, since statistical 
representativeness was not a priority. Persons interviewed are listed in Annex 2, while 
the 13 topical guides/questionnaires designed for the evaluation are included in Annex 4. 
A brief note about the “faces behind the numbers” in the following table. The grouping
labeled General Membership comprises PVO home office staff from across the 17 
member organizations, including new entries, technical specialists, and middle and senior 
managers. Working Group members are mostly mid- to senior-level technical specialists 
or managers. A mix of field technical staff and mid-senior level home office staff 
comprise the workshop participants. 
Focus group discussants included mid- to senior-level managers, who are also technically 
specialized. Senior managers with some support from backstop middle managers made 
up the pool of Steering Committee members. FANta advisors are both senior technical 
people, as are FAM Coordinators. FAM’s Technical Information Specialist, who 
manages the FSRC, was trained largely on-the-job under a mentoring agreement. 
Finally, USAID/FFP officials are both senior managers in that Office. 
2
Instruments & Samples Established for Use in FAM Evaluation 
 Instrument Sample Size # Responses % Response 
Key Informant 
Interview 
Steering Committee 7 6 86
FAM Staff/past-pres. 6 5 83
USAID/FFP Officials 2 2 100
FANta Rep. 2 2 100
Questionnaire – 
FAM Membership 
General Membership 18 9 50
Environmental
Working Group 
7 4 57
Monetization 
Working Group 
8 5 63
M&E Working
Group 
8 5 63
Local Cap. Building 
Working Group 
7 3 43
Questionnaire – 
Workshop Particip. 
Local Capacity 
Building 
8 2* 25
M&E 8 2* 25 
Monetization 9 4* 44
Environment 8 3* 38 
Focus Group
Working Group 
Representatives 
4 3** 75
 * Email address no longer extant/message returned “undelivered.” 
 Time constraints precluded repeated tries to contact addressees or 
 replacement with new respondents. 
 ** 6 persons, representing 3 Working Groups 
Generally, key informant interviews and the focus group discussion generated highly 
usable data for assessing FAM’s progress. Electronically administered questionnaires 
were completed by respondents for the most part in a thoughtful manner. Where an 
individual was charged with responding to more than one questionnaire (even though the 
selection for all but one—Working Group Member questionnaires—was randomly done), 
a limited degree of respondent fatigue was evident. 
Review of documentation figured importantly in the evaluation, including the provision 
of hard copy reports, but mostly electronic versions of reports. The site visit referred to 
earlier was to the Food Security Resource Center in FAM’s office located at 1625 K 
Street in Washington, D.C. There, a review of the organization of a hard copy collection 
of about 8,000 documents and a demonstration of the FAM website, www.foodaid.org, 
were conducted. The FAM website also served as an important source of evaluation data 
for FAM-coordinated processes and products, including working group minutes and the 
online survey. (Documents reviewed are listed in Annex 3.) 
3
In addition to the questionnaires distributed to workshop participants, workshop training 
data from pre- and post-test results, and post-workshop evaluations were used in 
assessing FAM’s input to skills and knowledge development. 
A brief note on the collaborative character of this evaluation is in order. FAM staff has 
had extensive input to this exercise at virtually every stage, and included the review of 
questionnaires sent to members and drafts of this report. FAM membership also 
participated in a review of the last draft of the report and made important points, many of 
which have subsequently been incorporated into the final report. While the evaluation 
process was not a full-blown participatory exercise, it nevertheless was a collaborative 
effort of the evaluator and the FAM staff and membership. Evaluative statements or 
judgments, nonetheless, should be attributed to the evaluator, not to the collaborators. 
D. Organization of Report 
The report is divided into five chapters, including the present one. Chapter 2 presents 
key findings on the strategic role of FAM, with sections on overall progress, constraints, 
fulfillment of Title II Food Aid requirements, and building institutional capacity. 
Chapter 3 presents key findings on dissemination and sharing of state-of-the-art food aid 
and food security practices. It will describe the contribution of the working groups, 
workshops and training tools, the Food Security Resource Center (FSRC), and other 
FAM member activities.
 
Chapter 4 presents key findings on FAM’s organizational impact, including the 
coordination of PVO members, the synergy of FAM and individual member institutional 
strengthening, and FAM management. It also addresses FAM’s potential for sustaining
its results. 
These are followed by the final chapter, Chapter 5, which presents conclusions, lessons 
learned and recommendations. These pertain to FAM itself, the FAM membership, and 
USAID/FFP’s role. 
4
Chapter 2 
KEY FINDINGS – STRATEGIC ROLE OF FAM 
FAM’s strategic role consists of two parts: one long-term and strategic, contributing to 
the food security goal to promote more effective use of food aid resources in 
development programs. The other, at a lower level of impact, is strengthening member
PVO capacity in the design, monitoring, and support of food aid and food security 
programs. How far FAM has progressed in contributing to these objectives is the subject 
of this chapter. 
A. Overall Progress 
General progress in how effectively the ISA objectives have been met to date is tracked 
in part through use of FAM’s results framework. That framework is embodied in an 
‘Indicator Performance Tracking Table’ (see Annex 5), which tracks measures of 
progress towards intended results. A detailed assessment of specific FAM program
activities is presented in this and subsequent chapters. It corresponds to the expected 
results tracked over the five-year period of the FAM initiative, inventoried as a reference 
point for the reader, as follows: 
--Website increased usage, user-friendliness by field staff, and use in design of 
 food security programs (in part through a mentoring partnership) 
--Successful workshops managed by FAM (no less than 10 over life of activity) 
--Monitoring & evaluation toolkit completed 
--Monetization manual, training modules, workshops completed (including 
 improved skill base in monetizing food aid) 
--LCB Measurement of Capacity Building paper 
--Environmental principles integrated into food security programs 
--Increased knowledge of food security matters (no less than 25 meetings 
 organized) 
--Improved collaboration of FAM members as a product of annual meetings, joint 
 program initiatives, mentorship relationships, jointly developed tools & 
 methods 
--Increased ‘autonomy’ of FAM and its membership in carrying out the above 
 activities (i.e., ‘self-starting’ and a diminished role of FAM staff in managing 
 the activity) 
Cumulative progress of the FAM Institutional Support Assistance (ISA) is presently 
assessed in terms of the three, earlier-mentioned FAM objectives. 
Facilitate and promote the development of food aid standards: Through FAM’s 
coordination of its PVO members, it has contributed to disseminating a significant 
5
amount of state-of-the-art information on specific standards. It has done so directly 
through: 
1. Cataloguing of about 8,000 documents available in the Food Security 
Resource Center (FSRC) 
2. An expansive food aid website: http://www.foodaid.org
3. Food Forum quarterly publication 
4. Support of Working Groups 
5. Offering thematic workshops 
6. Production of technical manuals 
7. Coordination of discussion groups and the FAM Steering Committee 
8. Constant interaction and communication with the membership 
FAM’s facilitation of its members has positively influenced them to adopt improved 
methods of planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating food aid/security 
programs. Cases in point are PVO members’ adoption of the following: 
• USAID/FFP Title II monetization policy, regulations, and practices that have been 
transmitted to and applied by PVO members in field operations 
• Common proposal frameworks for use by members in presenting their 
Development Activity Proposals and Detailed Implementation Plans to 
USAID/FFP
• Standardized planning formats for results monitoring and evaluation, and annual 
reporting by members to USAID 
• USAID/FFP Regulation 216 on environmental review procedures that was 
transmitted and is presently being applied to Title II field operations 
Progress is also being made through the Monitoring & Evaluation Working Group in 
developing a food aid/security monitoring and evaluation toolkit. That group has just 
recently contracted a consultant to develop guidelines for program monitoring, including
tools, methods and best practices. The Local Capacity Building (LCB) Working Group is 
presently beginning to develop an inventory of LCB indicators and tools. 
Promote the food aid and food security knowledge base of PVOs and other collaborators 
through information exchange and coordination: A growing knowledge base in food 
aid/security is a direct result of the FAM-managed FSRC library, website, and listservs. 
The website evidences growth in the number of users, both FAM and non-FAM. Precise 
numbers are included in Chapter 3, where the FSRC is reviewed in detail. 
The website also serves as an effective management-administrative tool for FAM in 
coordinating the program efforts of the Working Groups and informal groupings such as 
brownbag discussions. It includes updates on all Working Group activities, including 
meeting minutes, schedules for all FAM-supported events, such as workshops, Working 
Group meetings, brownbag discussions, and information on non-FAM events, 
particularly training offerings. 
6
On another level, the website provides general membership, including home office and 
importantly, field staff and other food security professionals with an increasing number 
of state-of-the-art publications. Many of those publications are available on the website, 
for easy access by users, and include key PVO and USAID documents. Also included on 
the website are the latest tools developed with FAM support for program and field staff 
application to Title II programs. FAM member field staff unable to take a particular 
workshop course can access some of the course materials, such as manuals, from the 
FAM website. They can also access information on technical products being developed 
by Working Groups. 
Workshops offered under FAM sponsorship clearly represent an economy of scale for 
FAM members. During the grant agreement period, nine workshops have been delivered. 
Offering a venue where PVO home office and/or field staff are able to share the latest 
food aid/security technologies not only represents a cost saving, but also contributes to 
promotion of a “culture of food aid professionals” among the key organizations 
responsible for implementing Title II. The workshops also provide technical staff of 
PVOs with up-to-date technical information on compliance with Title II necessary for 
continued implementation of USAID/FFP programs. (Annex 6 includes a matrix of 
FAM-supported collaborative training activities.) 
Economies of scale cannot be underestimated in the context of focusing and 
concentrating resources in FAM by both PVOs and USAID/FFP alike. As the current 
Chair of the FAM Steering Committee noted in an interview, “the PVOs could not be 
doing all this by themselves, setting up the FSRC, the website, doing the workshops, 
publishing the manuals.” He noted, as well, “so long as member participation continues 
at the present level, there should be no problem keeping up FAM’s productivity.” He 
indicated he expected it would. 
Liaison activities with such food aid agencies as World Food Program (WFP) and 
EuronAid were initially part of the objective to promote a knowledge base. The prior 
Coordinator of FAM apparently attended a WFP meeting in Rome earlier on, but FFP 
indicated in FY 2000 that such attendance was no longer part of FAM’s mandate. 
Facilitate collaboration between PVOs, USAID, and appropriate development and 
humanitarian professionals by organizing fora for discussion: Informal groupings have 
been formed under the auspices of FAM Working Groups to exchange the latest 
information on different technical aspects of food security (see Annex 9 for working 
group participants lists). These are most often held as brownbag 
presentations/discussions among members and other partners, including regular 
participation of USAID officials in certain of the presentations. Brownbags represent an 
informal, though time- and cost-effective, mode of information exchange and capacity 
building. 
Other significant venues for collaboration among members are annual meetings and 
Steering Committee meetings. Annual meetings have included presentations on issues of 
common vital concern to the general membership as well as opportunities for large and 
7
small group discussions on shared interests. Steering Committee meetings, in addition to 
providing critical leadership and counsel to FAM coordinators, have typically generated 
discussions on the key issues of the day in terms of both general food aid and specific 
USAID Title II-related issues. A close, open and professional relationship between FAM 
staff and that Committee was observed during the course of the mid-term evaluation.
A comment by a Steering Committee member in response to an earlier draft of this 
report, captures perfectly the spirit of collaboration of FAM members. It is worth quoting 
in its entirety. 
The importance of FAM’s fostering of PVO collaboration goes far beyond the work of specific 
FAM projects or tasks or committees. While it is difficult to attribute and to track, I believe that 
one of the most significant impacts of this role of FAM in bringing us together has been the 
strengthening of the relations between individual PVOs in both field and HQ offices. Our greater 
ease in collaborating outside of FAM-coordinated activities is in great part a result of our getting
to know and understand each other better through FAM, and our appreciation of what we can
gain from working together. Therefore, while FAM participation is no longer voluntary for ISA￾recipients, I do believe that it would continue without the specific requirements of our awards. 
 
B. Strengthening Capacity in Design, Monitoring, and Implementation of Title II 
 Programs 
 
Of the 17 members of FAM, 14 have their own Institutional Support Assistance (ISA) 
agreements with the Office of Food for Peace. While 12 PVOs have five-year 
agreements, two have three-year agreements. These are designed to enhance their 
capability to design, monitor and support their Development Activity Programs (DAPs), 
which are the implementing mechanisms for the provision of Title II development food 
and food aid programs. The same enhanced capability applies to members’ 
implementation of emergency relief-to-development transition programs, as well. FAM’s 
ISA, in turn, overarches these individual ISAs. Its intended result is a ‘value-added’ one 
whose impact we will see is greater than the sum of the individual agreements. 
FAM, FAM members, USAID/FFP, and certain USAID Missions all have the same
objective for food aid and food security, which is the improved effectiveness of food aid 
programs as a development tool or as a tool to support the transition from relief to 
development. FAM, in cooperation with its members and other partners, has selected 
specific areas of food aid on which to focus, namely monetization, monitoring and 
evaluation, local capacity building, and the environment. 
In making its contribution to improved food aid methods, FAM has worked closely with 
a FFP contractor, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANta). To be clear in 
distinguishing the related roles of FAM and FANta, FAM’s clients are its PVO members; 
FANta’s client is USAID/FFP. FANta and FAM cooperate under a memorandum of
understanding dating from 1998 to support PVOs in strengthening their technical 
capacity to implement Title II food aid programs. FANta renders both technical and 
financial assistance to FAM-supported activities, including costs of workshop trainers 
and other technical consultants. It is important, therefore, to recognize in what follows 
8
that the outcomes of FAM’s effort in promoting improved methods of food aid also 
sometimes overlap with those of FANta. This reflects a synergy and economy of scale 
otherwise unobtainable were it not for the cooperative effort of FAM and FANta. 
FAM contributions to improved food aid methods fall under its objective to ‘facilitate 
and promote the development of food aid standards.’ These contributions include 
support of the following design, monitoring, and implementation elements of Title II 
Programs: 
• More streamlined, systematic process for preparation, submission, and review of 
Development Activity Proposals and Detailed Implementation Plans by member 
PVOs to USAID/FFP 
• Improved process and structure for annual results reporting to USAID/FFP (the 
reporting requirement is called the Cooperating Sponsor Results 
Reporting/Resource Request or ‘CSR4’) 
• Improved application and reinforcement in field operations of new Title II policy, 
regulatory, and technical requirements 
In concert with FANta, FAM has supported the proposal, reporting, and field applications 
processes that contribute to the overall streamlining of PVO participation in the Title II
Program. It has also provided a venue in which USAID can interact on a systematic basis 
with all of the major implementers of Title II. In so doing, the FANta/FAM combined 
effort represents an economy of scale for USAID probably not otherwise achievable. 
Equally important, this effort has fostered a significant level of interaction among 
member PVOs which is channeled into meeting Title II requirements, and to dealing with 
related opportunities and constraints involved in creating meaningful, innovative food aid 
development programs. 
C. Promoting Efficient and Effective Use of Food Resources 
FAM members’ perceptions of the Program’s success in supporting them to improve 
design, implementation and monitoring of their activities are generally highly positive. 
These are mainly the perceptions of those who are PVO mid-senior level managers in 
home offices, mid-level program officers and managers in both the field and home
offices, and field technicians who implement food programs. A sampling of their views 
of FAM’s progress in supporting their programs is instructive. 
Steering Committee members, in effect the board of directors of FAM, were unanimously 
positive about the role the Program has played in helping member PVOs to get and stay 
on the same screen, that is, the state-of-the-art food aid and food security screen. FAM’s 
part in coalescing different partner points of view and facilitating members to collaborate 
for purposes of meeting higher goals was seen by these members as paramount to FAM’s 
success. A former chair of that Committee suggested that “the focal point of FAM is 
sharing information and lessons learned with all the member PVOs towards the aim of
doing better what we all already do quite well.” 
9
Program managers and staff expressed a favorable view of FAM’s role, mainly because it 
brings PVO technical staff together to share state-of-the-art food aid practices. Those 
managers and staff had either served on a FAM Working Group or participated in a 
FAM-supported workshop. They pointed to improved ways of organizing their approach 
to food aid programs or specific improvement in the technical aspects of implementation. 
One example is the overall improved approach to monetizing food aid, which is seen as 
having resulted from members’ information sharing through workshops and design of 
new tools, including technical manuals. 
Reflecting on the importance of FAM-supported workshops, one participant in a 
monetization workshop noted that “the monetization manual exposed us to basic 
guidelines for Title II programs, including information on cost recovery benchmarks, the 
U.S. commodity procurement schedule, call-forward, and Bellmon analysis.” According 
to that same participant, another benefit derived from the workshop was familiarization 
with some of the potential risks of monetizing food aid commodities in the private sector, 
risks directly related to field implementation. 
D. Building Institutional Capacity
The institutional strengthening mandate of FAM is implemented in the domain of
improved technical capacity and not of organizational change. However, the capacity of 
these PVOs to adapt to and benefit from FAM itself is itself a sign of improved 
organizational capacity. Proactive participation of members in Working Groups and in 
the training functions under FAM are evidence of a capacity of these organizations to 
adapt and grow. 
Member organizations of FAM participate in a variety of ways, determined by each 
organization itself. The level and character of participation or contribution by members 
are shaped by such factors as organizational strategy and size, number of Title II 
programs, availability of home office staff who can devote effort to FAM activities, and 
other internal priorities. The level of member participation suggests that there is a 
‘demand’ for FAM services, based on a perceived need of members to increase their 
learning potential in order to improve their contribution to food aid/security programs. 
A focus group discussion with members of three of the four FAM Working Groups 
pointed to a strong commitment to improve the state-of-the-art of their respective 
disciplines. Whether representing the environment, monetization, or local capacity 
building WG (monitoring and evaluation was not represented), a significant sense of 
willingness to cooperate among member PVOs to meet Title II mandates and deal with
other program interests was observed. Participation in these groups is also voluntary, so 
member workloads, including travel, sometimes make consistent attendance at WG
meetings difficult. Nevertheless, a review of the multiple products of these WGs, 
including workshops, discussion groups, agendas, and meeting minutes, indicates the 
positive results of their efforts in building capacity. 
10
Besides demonstrating an almost passionate feeling about their work areas, some WG 
representatives in the focus group also suggested that they sometimes felt WG agendas 
were too heavily driven by USAID mandates. They were fully aware of the contradictory 
nature of this perspective, in that the raison d’etre of their participation in the WGs is to 
build their capacity to improve their Title II work. Nevertheless, there was a sense that 
they would like to pursue professional interests beyond the confines of Title II but they 
understood how difficult that would be. Active participation in FAM-supported activities 
alone represents a commitment many members say they have a difficult time meeting. 
Workshops are integral to the dissemination of state-of-the-art learning and development 
of a knowledge base. They are covered in detail in the next chapter. In the meantime, 
suffice it to say that workshop pre and post-test scores are generally indicative of skills 
building among FAM members. An example is the Data Analysis Workshop, in which 
there was a significant improvement in scores relating to statistical sampling and 
measurement techniques. The Mean pre-test score was 6.3, while the mean post-test 
score was 9.4, and most participants said they would use what they had learned to 
increase their understanding and analysis of their project data sets. An FY00 CSR4 also 
noted that as a result of this workshop, a Title II program manager created a data tracking 
and analysis system, initiated using FY00 data.
E. Unifying Title II PVOs in Meeting Food Aid Challenges 
As suggested earlier, FAM provides a venue for increased interaction and sharing among 
those PVOs that implement Title II activities. That in itself, while necessary, is not 
sufficient to meet the objectives of the FAM Program. Furthermore, the ‘necessity’ of
the PVO members to cooperate, while perhaps a ‘logical’ premise, is not compelling in 
and of itself. In fact, as one long-term Steering Committee member suggested in an 
interview, “PVOs are not naturally structured to collaborate with one another.” He meant 
that PVOs are occupied with their own internal requirements, as well as external, 
program-related exigencies, and, besides, historically, they have not had a great deal of
collaboration with one another on a working level. 
So, if such collaboration may not be a natural predilection of PVOs, what then is the 
optimal institutional or organizational framework for achieving that result? Evidence 
from interviews and questionnaires administered for the evaluation points to a clear 
answer. The “need” for collaboration lies in the demand for state-of-the-art information 
relevant to successful implementation of Title II programs. Whether such collaboration 
takes the form of Working Groups, training sessions, brownbag discussions, shared use 
of the website or FSRC printed documents, there is a pent up demand for new theory, 
methods, approaches and techniques in food aid that drives the cooperative spirit so 
evident in FAM. 
11
F. General Constraints 
The evaluation found that opportunities seem to far exceed constraints in FAM’s capacity 
to meets its three objectives and the strategic and intermediate targets of its partners. We 
have begun to see some of the opportunities already. Three major constraints emerge 
from the overall program review undertaken in this evaluation. 
We start with the simplest, most straightforward constraint. It is that proverbial one of 
never enough time and money. A large majority of key informant interviews and the one 
focus group discussion with members of FAM, including Steering Committee members, 
Coordinators, Working Groups, and the FSRC Technical Information Specialist (TIS), 
point to that constraint. Perceptions from interviews on these two subsets of the same
constraint share much in common. For example, a member of a WG indicated, “we could 
do even better in our group if members could only give more time, but so many of us are 
always traveling.” This is directly related to the fact that much of the important work in 
food aid done by member PVOs is field-directed. Another member suggested, 
“fortunately we have the financial assistance of FANta, otherwise we couldn’t provide all 
the good workshop trainings.” 
In the domain of money, the FSRC TIS noted that FAM is not able to digitize the library
materials under its present budget, and suggested that perhaps funding might be available 
from other sources. 
The second constraint is the difficulty FAM has had in getting credit for its 
accomplishments. This constraint is built into FAM’s mandate, which is to facilitate 
others, and is based as much on perception as fact. It relates to FAM’s ‘right’ to take 
credit for the work it promotes among member PVOs. It became abundantly clear during 
the course of the evaluation that PVOs would not normally undertake this work 
individually or in a group. 
This second constraint also relates to the role played by the aforementioned FANta. 
FANta’s role, as a contractor to FFP, is to work with the exact same Title II PVOs that 
make up FAM. FANta provides financial and technical assistance to Title II PVOs. Its 
particular arrangement with FAM, through FFP, allows it to fund some of the costs of 
planning and implementing workshops given under the auspices of FAM. Because of 
FANta’s contribution, it will often get credit for a workshop even though it was a FAM 
initiative. FANta also has the funding to disseminate its publications widely across 
USAID and in the food aid sector generally, lending it a certain profile probably 
unattainable by FAM. 
In this respect, one Steering Committee member interviewed suggested that it was not 
clear to him that even USAID/FFP understood the distinction between FAM’s and 
FANta’s contributions. He found at times that USAID/FFP officials gave credit to 
FANta for an event, probably because they knew FANta’s financial and technical inputs 
had been made. That Committee member continued, “not that FANta is in any way 
12
undeserving of some credit, but remember that none of this could happen without the 
organizational structure and facilitation of FAM.” 
Another aspect of the same constraint occurs because sometimes even FAM members 
themselves, especially field staff, may be unaware of the role that FAM plays. To 
underscore the point, in an interview with a FANta representative, the suggestion was 
made that the value-added of FAM “has to come from a perception of the members 
themselves that they significantly improve their programs through FAM.” As if to 
accentuate the point, the same FANta representative noted that one FAM member that 
had sent its annual results report from the field directly to FFP, made no reference to 
either FAM or FANta support in its preparation. This person also cited a quote from a
CSR4 from West Africa (mentioned above on page 11) in which the Data Analysis 
workshop was attributed to USAID. While this may reflect a disconnect between home
and field office, it also underscores the need for FAM members to keep their field staff 
informed on the role of FAM. 
The third constraint also lies in the realm of perception. It is a perception of several of
the Steering Committee and WG members interviewed that USAID/FFP does not 
recognize the full value of FAM. They were not sure exactly why, but thought it might 
be a reflection of the earlier point that FFP sees FANta as the key player in much of what, 
in fact, FAM and FANta perform together. Perhaps because the size and monetary value 
of FANta’s contract is significantly larger than FAM’s, FAM may be easier to overlook. 
G. USAID/FFP Perspective 
An interview with officials of USAID/FFP clarified some Steering Committee 
perceptions of that office. FFP perceptions of FAM can be depicted in terms best 
characterized as a communications gap between FFP and FAM staff and members. One 
example of such a gap was the response to a question on what FFP sees as major FAM 
achievements. That response zeroed in on contributions of Working Groups for their 
value-added. Specifically, one of the FFP officials responded, “There is a gap between 
theory and reality,” and further, that “FAM’s value-added has not been apparent.” When 
pressed on this point, it was indicated that FFP “would like to be informed of the work of 
the Working Groups,” so that FFP can also learn the relevant lessons. Furthermore, one 
official suggested that the problem “could be easily handled on the level of an FYI or a 
memo.” 
A specific example of the ‘gap’ cited by the FFP official concerns the Monetization 
Working Group. This official suggested, “It would be in the best interest of FAM to be 
more proactive in relating progress or issues dealt with by that Group.” The situation 
thus seemed to come down to a question, the official suggested, of “Why do I have to 
ask?” 
These FFP officials were at some pain to point out that their perceptions are based mostly 
on the fact that they do not feel they know what the FAM partnership is achieving. This 
13
situation would seem to entail two factors, one more simple, the other not: first is 
communications, which presumably can be corrected; second, divergent perspectives, 
which may be less easily addressed. 
As to communications between FFP and FAM, there is some difference of perception on 
the details of what is communicated and what is not. It is recalled that FFP has the very 
same access to the FAM website as any other user, including all of the latest progress 
reports of the Working Groups. FAM staff found in meetings with FFP that they were 
not current with the latest updates of WG reports entered onto the website nor with topics 
covered by the latest edition of the FAM quarterly, Food Forum. 
Regarding FFP’s perceptions of the valued-added of FAM, that seems to reflect a certain 
discomfort in the relationship between FFP officials and FAM Coordinators. A variation 
on the perception theme reported in the FFP interview was FFP’s perception that the 
PVOs do not credit it for its support of their work. When FFP deals with the PVOs, for 
example, on questions of local capacity building issues, the officials indicated it is mainly 
through individual organizations. “Why not,” an FFP official asked in this regard, “deal 
with the PVOs on these issues as a group, that is, through FAM?” According to the FAM 
Coordinator, however, this idea was once suggested by a FAM member to FFP, but the 
suggestion was apparently rejected, suggesting a possible disconnect in either 
communications or different perspectives on how best to manage food aid/security 
programs. 
A consultant from the Mendez-England FFP support contract present at the interview 
proposed that one way of creating greater collaboration with FFP might be to take a ‘best 
practices’ product and use it as the centerpiece of a discussion with the FFP, starting with 
the question, for example, “How far do you have to go to define a ‘best practice’?” 
“What does it add up to?” “How is it useful to FFP?” While not suggesting that FAM is 
neglectful of generating best practices, since that is clearly not the case, it implies that for 
one reason or another, FAM’s focus on best practices in neither being seen nor heard, 
much less acknowledged, by FFP. Again, this situation seems to devolve to a matter of 
mixed messages or divergent perspectives. 
The interview addressed the issue of sustainability, labeled by one FFP officer as 
“institutionalization” or “ownership” of FAM. That person felt the PVOs needed to 
demonstrate more ownership, to develop more of a commitment than is now perceived by 
FFP. Presently, the perception is that “PVOs think FAM is ‘nice,’ but not essential,” as 
one official noted. A related factor is that FFP sees FAM as an avenue for the Title II 
PVOs to overcome what was depicted as their “basic competitiveness” and to develop a 
true collaboration. After all, as one FFP official indicated, “collaboration is the 
centerpiece of the latest round of ISAs.” 
It should be noted that FAM member PVOs with ISAs have already devoted a portion of 
their ISA resources to participation in FAM meetings and WGs. They are evaluated on 
that participation as a part of their ISA programs. In addition, since FAM’s ISA derives 
from the same pool of funds that the FAM members’ grants, this reduces the overall 
14
possible funding levels for those members. FAM members strongly supported this 
arrangement during the ISA process. Otherwise FAM would not have received ISA 
support. 
Such different perceptions and divergent perspectives are all the more disappointing to 
FAM, since just a few years ago, at an annual meeting at Coolfont, West Virginia, the 
rationale and usefulness of the FAM initiative was reaffirmed by all Title II stakeholders, 
including, noticeably, USAID/FFP. These stakeholders came to an understanding and 
agreement on what FAM was expected to accomplish over the next few years. Members 
and FFP agreed to the activities of FAM, and that the members would build these 
activities into their own ISAs, as well as support FAM in securing its ISA. The process 
of cooperative decision-making was perceived as important in that it involved all the 
Title II partners. That the period for this evaluation (late 1998 – early 2001) is, in effect 
the ‘post Coolfont’ years, it can only be said that a return to the spirit of cooperation 
agreed to at Coolfont should be a consideration of all the partners of the FAM initiative. 
15
Chapter 3 
KEY FINDINGS – DISSEMINATION AND SHARING OF 
STATE-OF-THE-ART FOOD AID/SECURITY PRACTICES 
This chapter considers some of the inner workings of FAM, the functioning units of the 
organization. Even for the inner workings, it is recalled, FAM is a facilitator, a mediator, 
an agent in the middle that can help make things happen but that cannot force results. It 
is mainly through the components of FAM that it fulfills it objectives linked to food aid 
standards, to the knowledge base, and to collaboration. We begin with a review of the 
Working Groups. 
A. Working Groups 
1. Monetization
Initiated at the 1997 FAM annual meeting, the Monetization Working Group (MWG) has 
as its objective improved institutional capacity to implement Title II monetization 
programs. Its focus is improved design and implementation of monetization activities. 
Skills training of field and home office personnel represents one means for achieving its 
objective. The MWG works in collaboration with FAM members, FFP officials, USAID 
Missions, and other interested parties. Three key products contributing to its objective 
are a monetization manual, workshops, and establishing a mechanism for future 
collaboration. 
During FY 2000, the MWG finalized and distributed the Title II Cooperating Sponsor 
Monetization Manual. The manual represents a reconciling of PVO manuals with 
legislative changes and new USAID guidelines. Used in monetization workshops, it 
along with the workshops has been favorably rated by participants. Such a rating is based 
on responses of FAM members to questionnaires distributed to the general membership, 
members of the MWG, and participants in several monetization workshops. 
WG members questioned indicated that even while the monetization manual is being 
tested, they still often use it as a reference guide. One WG member reported that his 
PVO was using the manual “in ensuring conversion of commodity resources into 
resources for programming-planning, logistics, and compliance with guidance.” 
Another WG member suggested that the manual’s use “enables us to transfer more 
management responsibility, especially in monitoring monetization activities, to the field 
level.” Yet, another WG member mentioned the economy-of-scale opportunity provided 
by the manual, saying, “as we did not have to spend the money and time to develop it 
individually, we have been able to free up those resources for other training needs.” 
Finally, one member summarized the effect of the manual, shortcutting the jargon of the 
16
sector indicating that, “monetizers are better prepared to monetize with all the 
information at their fingertips.” 
The Monetization Working Group also contributed to a ‘Monetization listserv,’ a 
software package provided by FAM’s mentoring partner, FHI, to serve as a ready-made 
communications conduit for the members of FAM’s Working Groups. It does not use the 
listserv much because of a concern about inaccurate information being sent over it. The 
MWG is presently working through the mentorship program with FHI to resolve this 
issue. 
A listserv is run by a software program that groups subscribers’ email addresses into a 
single grouping, accessed by a single email address, for immediate access of all members 
to any message sent to that address. The Monetization listserv was created to facilitate 
and promote the exchange of information on how practitioners face increasingly 
challenging issues of monetization. 
2. Monitoring & Evaluation
Also initiated at the 1997 FAM annual meeting, the Monitoring and Evaluation WG
(M&E WG) was formed to address priority M&E issues and needs of FAM membership. 
Specifically, the M&E WG aimed to assist in developing the membership organizational 
capacity to monitor and evaluate Title II programs. It also intended to facilitate 
development of a series of M&E toolkits, containing methods, techniques and other 
instruments designed for the food aid sector. This WG participates actively through its 
own listserv, used for addressing technical issues and questions, workshop 
announcements, and notices of new publications in the FSRC. 
The M&E WG has recently contracted a consultant to design a toolkit which will consist 
of a compendium of monitoring tools. Having attended a M&E WG meeting, one of
whose purposes was to discuss the consultant’s work plan, the evaluator noted a strong 
commitment of this group to the work and to its completion in a timely manner. A 
FANta M&E representative present for the meeting played a proactive, constructive role 
in discussing technical issues. 
During the evaluation period, the M&E WG has undertaken a review of baseline, mid￾term and final evaluation methods and tools. One product of that work, “Review of 
Agriculture Baseline Surveying Methods of Title II Funded PVOs: Part I –
Socioeconomic Methods,” is posted on FAM’s website. The WG also sponsored a 
second review that focused on an agricultural biophysical baseline and evaluation 
methods. A formal report derived was from this review, titled “Prediction, Impact and 
Control Variables for Field Research Evaluation,” which can also be found on the FAM 
website. 
Yet a third review has been conducted, resulting in a report, titled “Review of Health and 
Nutrition Project Baseline Research Methods of Title II Funded PVOs.” It, too, is 
located on FAM’s website. That document, according to one WG member, “was very 
17
useful in developing our questionnaires for the DAP (Development Activity Proposal) 
surveys.” 
Applications of reviews and products from the WG have resulted in one PVO’s use of 
food diversity and frequency indicators in its food aid projects. A member of the M&E
WG commented that, in “putting presentations from workshops on the website, e.g., the 
sampling workshop and in general, having a resource list of real-world documents and 
links is helpful.” 
3. Local Capacity Building
Also formed at the FAM annual meeting of 1997, the Local Capacity Building Working 
Group (LCB WG) struggled at the beginning of the ISA grant due to sporadic meetings 
and an apparent inability to agree on a common definition and concept for LCB. As the 
LCB WG FY 2000 Annual Report notes, agreement was difficult because of a “diversity 
in focuses and approaches of capacity building.” In order to recommit itself and refocus 
the work of the Group, it decided to prepare a workshop in LCB for the 1999 Annual 
Meeting. Objectives of that workshop included establishing common elements/skills for 
LCB, identifying areas for FAM collaboration, and developing a WG work plan. 
Last year the LCB WG began making progress, based on each PVO presenting its 
capacity building (CB) approach, methodology and learnings. This year, under new 
leadership, a cohesion of that Group has evolved and a new focus has been given to the 
work. A planned three-day workshop will focus on a review of CB approaches, 
indicators and an M&E methodology. 
The LCB WG has prepared a draft consultant’s agreement which will provide FAM and 
its members (and the larger development community) with an annotated review of the 
current Title II CB indicators, methodologies, and tools for capacity building. A second 
draft consultant’s agreement is to “Develop an inventory of capacity building indicators 
used in current Title II development programs and, in collaboration with WG members, 
identify and analyze core CB indicators.” This second task aims to provide a non-Title II 
perspective on LCB and to identify gaps in indicators currently used in Title II programs
and ISA grants. In that respect, the effort is intended to identify unmet measurement 
needs in the LCB arena. 
The LCB listserv is one of the most active, used by WG co-chairs to communicate with 
members about meeting schedules and other WG matters. The WG has also used the 
listserv recently to hold a discussion, for example, about the scope of work for the 
consultancy. This WG has also been very proactive in ensuring that their website home 
page is updated with the latest presentations and meeting notes, both important for this 
group whose members seem to have a more difficult time meeting in person because of 
work travel schedules. 
The present co-chair of the WG, in a response to the WG questionnaire, discussed the 
Group’s problems over a common definition of capacity building, saying “it means 
18
different things to different PVOs. Before the WG can operationalize a set of practical 
definitions, we first need to determine the commonalities and differences in LCB.” One 
of the priorities of the proposed workshop will be “to collectively identify an array of 
best practices LCB indicators that measure capacity at different levels.” 
Based on the questionnaire used with the LCB WG, it is very evident that some member 
PVOs are considerably further ahead in organizational learning in the capacity building
arena. This is partly a matter of their size, their resources, and existing capacity to 
perform mutual capacity building. It is also noted that the length of time and effort that 
institutional capacity building requires is usually vastly underestimated. 
4. Environmental
This Working Group was the only one of the four that did not formally emerge during the 
1997 annual meeting. Even though the Environmental Working Group (EWG) is defined 
as an “informal” WG, since FFP does not officially recognize it, it is one if not the most 
active of the WGs. Besides sponsoring a major workshop on environmental compliance, 
the WG has used funding awarded directly by USAID to support additional compliance 
workshops implemented by individual PVOs. It has also sponsored several well-attended 
brownbag discussions. Notable, as well, is participation in the EWG by USAID 
environmental officers, one of whom maintains contact from his overseas post. 
The EWG is the most active of the listserv users, employing their listserv to send out 
meeting announcements and meeting notes, as well as to provide technical support 
through quarterly bibliographies and lists of environmental websites. It is also used to 
communicate news and notices on key environmental issues. 
The WG’s production of an Environmental Documentation Manual (EDM) has met with 
considerable success. Commenting on its use by his organization’s food team, one WG 
member noted, “Field staff use the EDM is preparation of the environmental 
documentation required for design and reporting. As the technical person on the Food 
Team, I use it for giving advice on compliance issues, especially at the design phase.” 
More specifically, this same representative, in responding to the EWG questionnaire, 
noted that one of the best practices resulting from EDM application was the pesticide 
action plans used in curbing dangerous chemicals. 
In response to the WG questionnaire, another PVO representative made a direct link 
between the WG and application of practices in the field. She commented, 
“Environmental considerations are now an integral part of all food security projects. A 
dramatic example is that the quality of the Food for Work roads has improved greatly 
now that environmental mitigation measures are being used.” Additionally, she noted 
that environmental mitigation indicators are being incorporated in the M&E process of
her organization. 
At least two USAID environmental officers active in the EWG are very positive about the 
group’s work. One of these officers noted that communications between the PVOs and 
19
USAID Missions on environmental issues have especially improved because of practices 
embodied in the EDM and other WG products. He also expressed strong 
satisfaction with a derivative of the EDM, a ‘A Cooperating Sponsor’s Field Guide to the 
USAID Environmental Compliance Procedures,’ suggesting, “I can teach a neophyte how 
to prepare an IEE in about one hour with this.” The ‘Field Guide’ was jointly authored 
by CRS and FAM Staff. 
The second USAID environmental officer, now working in a USAID Mission, 
commented that the EWG was serving a useful purpose in organizing USAID and PVOs 
around Title II, “Responding in a participatory way across institutional lines to the 
recognition that USAID’s environmental procedures need to be internalized.” He also 
noted the momentum maintained by the EWG over four years, rooted mainly in the 
interest and conviction of participants, yet with relatively little budgeting. 
In a burst of praise for the EWG, this same USAID officer, in responding to the WG
questionnaire, commented, “The EWG Forum is absolutely essential to maintain the role 
of champion and ‘exhorter’ to keep capacity to address environmental soundness as a 
fundamental principle on the agenda.” 
The EWG illustrates how robust the activities of a WG can be and how broadly-based the 
participation, when FAM members engage on critical issues in cooperation with USAID 
environmental officers. 
B. Workshops and Training Tools 
1. Monetization
Several MWG members have been especially active in hosting overseas workshops. 
These workshops were held in Ghana, South Africa, India, and Peru. 
Monetization workshop participants interviewed indicated that the manual/workshop 
package was especially useful in spelling out the Bellmon analysis and open and 
competitive commodity sales. One participant noted that a specific contribution of the
workshop to managing food aid occurred in his work in “initiating the monetization of 
soybean oil in the private sector of Bangladesh under Title II 416(b).” Another 
participant remarked that the manual had been “especially useful in managing such Title 
II activities as the cost recovery benchmark, U.S. commodity procurement schedule, 
Bellmon analysis, call forward, and monetization budget and sales proceeds 
management.” Pre- and post-test results from the most recent workshop hosted by CRS￾Peru in January 2001 showed an improvement of 47.9% overall. The working group is 
current conducting its own follow-up survey of workshop participants to help instruct its 
future training activities. The survey requests information on how well the training has 
been used, and what further support workshop participants require. The results will be 
reviewed in early July, and the working group will frame its future training plans around 
those results.
20
2. Monitoring and Evaluation
The M&E WG cooperated with FANta to sponsor and implement a Sampling Workshop 
in the Washington, D.C. area and a Data Analysis Workshop in Nairobi, Kenya. 
Participants in the M&E workshops were positive in their ratings of its success, though it 
should be noted that participants were generally difficult to locate for purposes of 
disseminating the evaluation questionnaire. 
One participant in the Data Analysis workshop noted that it “was extremely useful – a 
very practical hands-on kind of workshop – the people who left that were able to do 
appropriate data analysis in their programs.” Another said she “learned how to analyze 
nutritional indicators such as exclusive breastfeeding and intake of complementary foods 
and to use malnutrition indicators, including stunting, underweight, and wasting.” 
The Data Analysis workshop was also useful to a participant who manages food security 
programs because, as she suggested, “we now put more emphasis on M&E, and we have 
also come to the realization that we need to concentrate on building capacity in M&E, 
especially in statistical analysis.” 
For the Sampling Workshop, one participant noted a fundamental lesson learned about 
survey design. Tersely put, it was, “Once you have reached the analysis stage, sampling 
errors can no longer be cleaned, so think carefully about your sampling design before 
conducting your survey.” 
3. Local Capacity Building
Because there was only one response to the LCB workshop participant questionnaire 
there is little to report, and what there is suggests a mixed picture of the workshop. The 
sole respondent noted “The most applicable learning from the session was to hear about 
LCB in other organizations.” But, she went on to say, “It was also interesting (partly 
useful and partly disappointing) that FAM members cannot come to a common 
understanding of LCB (too different organizations).” This comment reaffirms the earlier 
discussion with the LCB WG co-chair on the divergent approaches of the members to 
LCB. 
One best practice cited from the LCB Workshop reported in the WG questionnaire, is 
instructive for the LCB WG itself; it is, “The local NGO or other group targeted for LCB 
initiatives should be included in all stages of the design and implementation of the LCB 
program (i.e., the participative approach – they know their needs best).” While clearly 
we cannot generalize from one response to the questionnaire, that response at least 
underscores the need for LCB WG members to be more aware of different approaches to 
the subject. 
21
4. Environmental
The EWG offered one FAM-supported workshop. It was a training-of-trainers (TOT) 
workshop in environmental compliance, namely Regulation 216 in Title II programs. 
Workshop participants who responded to the questionnaire were generally very positive 
about the outcome of the workshop. 
The EWG TOT workshop was designed to further the understanding and ability of field 
staff to manage Regulation 216 compliance, since it will be replicated by the attending 
trainers with field staff in their countries or on a regional basis. It has already led to 
subsequent Regulation 216 compliance workshops (Peru) and others are scheduled for 
this FY (Bangladesh and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). 
Overseas field staff that took the Regulation 216 training of trainers workshop and 
responded to the participant questionnaire judged the course favorably. One staff 
member indicated he had learned about “the relevant tools and resources that can be 
tapped when an IEE needs to be done,” and that he had increased his “awareness about 
environmental issues during planning and implementation of DAPs.” 
Another overseas field staff person noted that the Regulation 216 workshop had brought 
together USAID officials, national government officials, and PVO head office and field 
staff in a mix he characterized as “good for discussion.” Another field staff person also 
noted the mix of different expertise, but based on “networking with other country food 
aid/infrastructure programs.” Finally, another participant suggested the workshop 
provided the possibility of “sharing Environmental Management Plans with affected 
people or targeted beneficiaries.” 
C. Food Security Resource Center 
FAM’s Food Security Resource Center (FSRC) provides several key services to FAM 
members and the food aid community generally. First is the website, which provides a 
variety of choices to users. It is organized for FAM members and non-members alike. 
Each Working Group has its own page on the website. Their meeting minutes, annual 
work plans, and selected technical products, such as manuals, are also provided. Specific 
website pages for Nutrition and USAID are offered, as well. A training calendar is 
available to all users, providing information on the latest workshops and other training 
opportunities. 
Website: The website has an outline of documents and links to bibliographies of state-of￾the-art food security publications. Selected publications in full text are offered, of which 
certain USAID reports were noted to be very popular. A page on food aid Periodicals is 
provided, along with FAM’s own publication, Food Forum, which is offered in full text. 
22
The website serves as a management tool for FAM coordinators and working groups. 
Specifically it is used as a means of keeping in continuous communication with FAM 
members, Working Groups, USAID food aid officials, and other professionals. Each 
FAM member has access to information on Working Group progress, issues, documents 
and news of planned training functions. FAM management coordinates the input of 
materials onto the website. 
One specialized aspect of the FSRC is the Development Ecology Information Service for 
Africa or DEVECOL/Africa. It is a geographic information-based system developed 
with funding from USAID. It provides map-based soil, climate and crop-suitability data 
for Africa cross-referenced with a database of project documents (descriptions, case 
studies, data, and evaluations). Many of its data sources come from the FSRC, though it 
is not funded by FAM. Presently, DEVECOL must be accessed from a workstation at 
FSRC. Tentative plans are to expand the database of this tool. Its specific use to FAM 
members is in the design of their projects. As the DEVECOL project is supported to 
increase its database, this could enable FAM to digitize some of its resources. 
Listservs are another piece of the FAM website. They are email distribution systems for 
FAM members and other users. Four of the listservs have been developed to facilitate 
communication and information exchange on working group subject matter (e.g. 
Monetization, M&E, Local Capacity Building, and Environmental). The fifth and newest 
listserv on “Commodity Management” enables the exchange of information regarding 
that topic. FAM has also been testing the use of internet chat technology which would 
permit online meetings to take place. FAM staff and FHI have found it to work well with 
small groups with short agendas or open agendas, but not large groups with long agendas. 
Several FAM members have been reticent to make use of this technology out of concern 
that it could compromise the security of organizational servers.” 
Use of the food aid website during FY 2000 shows an increase over the previous year of 
32%. From February 1999, when Net Tracker website tracking software was installed, 
visits to the site increased by 85%. Net Tracker can determine number of visits, location 
by country, and pages viewed. 
These numbers, as with all website hit numbers, must be treated carefully. For instance, 
half of these visits are short, that is, the user leaves immediately, though this number has 
recently been found to remain static. A survey has been posted to determine more 
precisely exactly what ‘serious’ users expect, whether their expectations are being met, 
quality of service (including ease and speed of access to specific entries), and additional 
entries they would like to see. 
A review of questionnaires from FAM general membership shows a highly positive view 
of FAM's website. One user reported, “We find the website very helpful and user 
friendly. Our staff uses it frequently when performing research on policy issues, 
searching for links to other websites, and for basic food security definitions.” Another 
member, representing one of the larger PVOs with worldwide programs, indicated that 
23
the food aid website is easily accessible, and that while “technology is usually the only
block to field office access, few country programs have this difficulty any longer.” 
Most respondents indicated full satisfaction with FSRC services. On the ‘improvement 
list,’ one member proposed “getting the FSRC online as a fully digitized library 
(bibliography and texts), which would enable full access to these resources.” 
Many Working Group members pointed to the website as a valuable source for materials 
used in developing and submitting their DAPs and preparing their Detailed
Implementation Plans. Of particular use in these tasks is current USAID/FFP guidance 
posted on the website. This would include food aid guidelines on commodities and 
commodity management, monetization, the environment, results reporting, among other 
topics. USAID Staff are also frequent users of the FAM web site, and are regularly 
among the top five organizational visitors each month (see Annex 10 for a complete
analysis of FAM website data). 
Document Collection: The FSRC library has about 8,000 documents, organized in files 
or on shelves. They are readily accessible by visitors to the Center. Documents are used 
on-site at the Center, read on the website in the case of a limited number of selected 
reports or articles posted in full text, or obtained in hard copy by direct request from
FSRC. Requests numbered 146 for FY 2000. Requesters include FAM and non-FAM 
member PVOs, USAID staff, university professors and students, and USDA staff. In 
response to those requests, 251 documents were sent out. A record of requests for 
documents to the FSRC for the period FY1999-FY2000 (2d quarter) is represented 
graphically below. Overall requests are represented in Series 1, while Series 2 represents 
the number of requests which came from field staff. On average, one quarter of all FSRC 
document requests come from the field. The large drop in requests during FY2000 is 
attributed to the lack of a TIS at FAM from first quarter of FY2000 through third quarter. 
24
FSRC Requests FY99 - 2nd Quarter FY01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Quarter and FY
Number of Requests
Series1 66 59 57 63 36 28 38 45 46 56
Series2 14 13 15 23 11 8 8 9 14 12
FY1999 Q1 FY1999 Q2 FY1999 Q3 FY1999 Q4 FY2000 Q1 FY2000 Q2 FY2000 Q3 FY2000 Q4 FY2001 Q1 FY2001 Q2
USAID usage of the FSRC’s print resources has been less than their usage of the FAM 
website. The graphic below compares FSRC requests for documents from PVOs to 
requests from USAID staff for the period FY1999-FY2000 (2d quarter.) 
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Number of Requests
FSRC Requests from PVOs vs. USAID
Requests for PVOs 35 36 40 49 29 18 31 30 27 33
Requsts for USAID 5 6 4 5 5 0144 6
FY1999 
Q1
FY1999 
Q2
FY1999 
Q3
FY1999 
Q4
FY2000 
Q1
FY2000 
Q2
FY2000 
Q3
FY2000
Q4
FY2001 
Q1
FY2001
Q2
Regarding FAMs own documentary production, an inventory of documents produced by 
FAM under its ISA is presented in Annex 8. 
Mentoring Relationship. Since 1998, FAM has had a formal mentoring relationship with 
one of its PVO members to support FAM in its website design and maintenance 
capabilities. This support, rendered by Food for the Hungry International (FHI), is 
judged to have been very effective, as seen in comments from Steering Committee 
members, Working Group members, and the general membership on the utility of the 
website. It has included strengthening of the Technical Information Specialist’s (TIS) 
website skills, including formal training, which resulted in the recent redesign of the 
website mostly on her own. The FAM website is hosted on FHI’s server, notably 
because of the advanced sophistication of FHI’s system. (See Annex 10 for a complete 
analysis of the FAM/FHI Mentorship Agreement.) 
Food Forum. Published quarterly by FAM, this publication includes articles on topical 
food aid and food security issues and experience of both FAM and non-FAM members in 
managing food aid. Once published bi-monthly, publication was cut back due to the 
significant workload it represented to FAM staff, and increased printing costs. Now, the 
workload for preparing Food Forum is shared with the membership. FAM member 
PVOs have volunteered to take responsibility to co-edit four issues per calendar year. 
While last year, World Vision and Africare volunteered, this year it was OICI and, again, 
Africare. It is published in both hard copy and on the web. Most member PVOs have 
contributed one or more articles to the publication (see Annex 7). 
26
While Food Forum represents considerable state-of-the-art information on food aid issues 
and activities, it was found in a FAM survey to be not as popular among members as, say, 
the FAM website. FAM Coordinators suggested during interviews that this is attributable 
to its content not generally being directly relevant to members’ specific food aid 
operations. FAM, however, receives between one and five requests weekly for 
subscriptions, mostly from USAID, US Department of Agriculture, PVO field offices, 
private consultants, and other organizations not particularly involved in Title II. Food 
Forum’s future is not fully clear to FAM Coordinators. 
The contents of the publication could be shortened and focus primarily on addressing 
more immediate topical issues, such as: FAM events and activities, new regulations, Title 
II guidelines and policies, and new state-of-the-art tools, documents, and resources 
available on the FAM website and in the FSRC. 
Constraints and Opportunities: A move of the FAM offices from one part of 
Washington, D.C. to another, including movement of the FSRC, constrained the full 
development of its potential to serve the membership and others during FY 2000. 
Departure of the TIS and succession by a new person was also constraining. Despite 
those constraints, the FSRC was able to continue to serve, though at a slower pace than 
earlier years. In addition, a volunteer internship program has recently been introduced, 
allowing the TIS to focus more on managing the dissemination process than on the work 
involved in FSRC’s extensive paper-flow. 
A second constraint has been the posting of the FSRC bibliographic database 
(approximately 8,000 bibliographic citations) on the website. Originally tasked out to a 
consultant, the activity ran into technical and personnel troubles. During the course of 
this evaluation, an external consultant has offered on a pro bono basis to place the FSRC 
database on-line. If this arrangement works, the link could be completed by May, and 
would include subsequent technical support and training. (It was learned before 
finalizing this report that the work has been almost completed and the database could be 
online imminently.) 
One particular opportunity, or more realistically, challenge, is to digitize the entire FSRC 
collection. This would provide one of the best sources of food aid documents extant 
today on a worldwide basis. Whether to make all of FAM’s approximate 8,000 
documents available on-line or on a CD, the availability of this source would 
significantly enhance the knowledge base on food aid . Contacts have been made with 
different organizations to advance the idea of digitizing the library, through either a 
cooperative mechanism or a grant. Since there are some highly labor-intensive aspects to 
the task, it is not yet clear how it can happen. 
27
D. Other Collaboration
Additional venues for dissemination and sharing include brownbag discussions, annual 
meetings, and Steering Committee meetings. Brownbags have been alluded to already. 
Their value is in the sharing by one or more persons, often representing one of the 
Working Groups, in new work in a specific food aid or food security sector. Since they 
are seen as working lunches, there is a perception that this is not just another meeting to 
attend. They are seen as an integral part of the FAM fabric, contributing to the growing 
body of food aid knowledge and to an increased sense of professional collegiality among 
FAM members and partners, including USAID officials. The Environmental WG has
been at the forefront of the brownbag. 
Brownbags also provide a venue for the presentation of new findings that members might 
not find out about otherwise. They also offer the opportunity for discussion, exchange 
and learning. A few of these have evolved into day-long, PVO-wide discussions, on such 
important subjects as one organized by the MWG on freight rates. These represent 
opportunities for true learning and valuable exchanges of knowledge. 
Annual meetings have been an important point of contact of FAM members and their 
USAID partners. There, issues of mutual importance are raised, the agenda of FAM for 
the coming year is set, and various trainings offered. The concept of Working Groups, 
for example, now so integral to the work of FAM, grew out of one annual meeting. 
These meetings are held in different regions of the country, mainly to reflect the 
geographic diversity of the membership. 
The Steering Committee (SC), or board of directors of FAM, is an important part of the 
FAM structure. As the name implies, this committee guides FAM in meeting its 
objectives. Since SC members are themselves representatives of the member 
organizations, they have a stake in getting the best results from FAM. CARE is the only 
permanent member as the project holder. Two other founding members are on the SC 
and these rotate annually. Four non-founding members participate, selected by lots 
annually, serving a single term. A Chair is selected from among these seven members. 
The SC has just completed a new set of by-laws, which created the new, more 
representative structure. 
The original structure of the SC was altered so to be more representative, to increase 
ownership of FAM by all its members, and to ensure that perspectives of newer members 
are adequately represented in setting the direction of FAM work. It is important, 
according to one SC member, for the founding members to continue to have a strong
voice in the operations of the initiative. Equally critical, as well, suggested this same
member, “is to ensure that a broader range of PVO experience and approaches are 
included.” 
Members of the SC, in individual interviews with the evaluator about FAM’s functions, 
rendered well-configured interpretations of its origins and roles. As one long-term
28
member of the SC asserted, “Since PVOs are not structured to collaborate, it takes an 
entity such as FAM to bring them together.” Another noted, in the same vein, “if there 
wasn’t any FAM, some structure like it would have to be invented.” Yet a third 
suggested that “FAM exists because of USAID; how could it deal with each PVO 
independently in institutionalizing its changing mandates? If it hadn’t invented itself, 
USAID would have had to invent it.” 
The SC is an important venue for these mostly senior food security managers. They not 
only collaborate with fellow professionals, they learn of each others’ approaches to food 
aid, and cooperate with each other in responding to USAID Title II requirements. While 
FAM is explicitly not a lobbying organization (unlike the Food Aid Coalition that 
includes both Title II PVOs and commercial food interests), it does serve to unite the 
PVOs in representing themselves to USAID on technical matters of food aid. 
29
Chapter 4 
KEY FINDINGS – ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT 
FAM’s major role is to coordinate members in achieving mutual objectives of improved 
food aid standards, an expanded knowledge base, and more effective collaboration. We 
have reviewed in previous chapters some of the detailed results of FAM’s coordinating 
role. Here, we summarize FAM’s organizational impact, its synergistic role in 
institutional strengthening, and its management, including coordination of Working 
Groups. We then turn to a consideration of FAM’s potential for sustainability. 
A. Coordination of Members 
All of FAM’s work is coordination of one type or another. Its raison d’etre is support of 
its primary clients, the member organizations. In this sense, its achievements are the 
achievements of its clients. In another sense, the ‘higher level’ client is USAID/FFP, 
whose funds enable the technical support and implementation of Title II Development 
Programs. The final client in the chain is the end-user, who is the food insecure rural or 
urban family served by Title II. While we cannot trace FAM impact to the end-user, we 
can at least review its effect on members and, to a lesser degree, on USAID. 
FAM has increased member organization staff awareness of the importance of improved 
food aid practices. By facilitating members’ pursuit of such practices, it has raised their 
consciousness about the role of collaboration in achieving excellence. One member, 
responding to the general membership questionnaire, put it directly: “Generally, 
collaboration through FAM has raised staff awareness of best practices of our own 
agency and others, and thus has encouraged collaboration and information sharing with 
the aim of improving program design and implementation.” 
Another member reflected on FAM’s coordinating role, saying “FAM has helped my
organization improve its capacity within several areas related to food security 
programming, mainly through its working groups and sponsorship of various trainings 
and workshops. Working group meetings have particularly served to expose our junior 
food security staff to and keep mid-level staff informed of best practices, lessons learned, 
and cross-cutting issues in the Title II development arena.” 
Yet a third member is even more specific about FAM’s collaborative role. She credits 
FAM with a significant contribution to her organization’s food security program, 
reporting that “The collaboration on the FAM Monetization Manual, the Environmental 
Manual and training materials, the two M&E tools (agricultural and health), and the 
associated workshops have been some of the most beneficial contributions to our 
organization.” Their contribution was in the areas of preparing DAPs, designing M&E 
plans, and reporting on performance. 
30
This evaluation attempted to go beyond individuals who have direct contact with FAM 
efforts, namely through the workshop participant questionnaires. In reviewing responses 
of some of the field operations staff members, we have been able to see the reach of 
FAM-coordinated activities. These were more evident in the monetization, M&E, and 
environmental workshops, whose products have been directly and immediately applied to 
field operations planning and implementation. 
Overall, PVO members interviewed or questioned for this evaluation gave high marks for 
FAM’s coordinating role. While there may have been some self-criticism by members of 
their own shortcomings in the area of participation, there were virtually no criticisms of 
FAM coordinators themselves in their efforts to elicit membership participation. 
B. Institution Strengthening 
Institution strengthening is a difficult subject to embrace and assess analytically in this 
type of evaluation. Since we have to base this part of the evaluation on what people say, 
it is difficult to be definitive in the absence of an institution assessment. Nevertheless, 
relying on the perspectives of persons questioned, we will endeavor briefly to say 
something about institutional strengthening under FAM. 
It is in the areas of knowledge management, training, and field applications that we see 
some of the institution strengthening impacts of FAM. How a PVO conceptualizes its 
knowledge, demonstrated mainly in program planning and design, including M&E 
design, offers one clue. Many interviewees and respondents reported on their use of new 
tools promoted through FAM-supported workshops, mainly monetization and 
environmental tools, in the design of their field programs. That certainly is a sign of 
institution strengthening. 
The application of new methods and approaches gleaned through training is another 
benchmark. In cooperation with FANta, FAM members have made considerable 
headway in applying the USAID-supported results-based management approach to 
planning, design, and monitoring of Title II programs. 
Staff capacity building, a subset of institution strengthening, is reflected in two different 
responses from members. One is focused on home office staff development, the other on 
national staff development. The home office focus, employed by a relatively recent FAM 
member, is as follows: 
For us, FAM’s main capacity building impact has been at the headquarters level…our 
headquarters staff participate in the FAM Working Groups on Monetization, M&E, Environment
and LCB and have also participated in various workshops organized by FAM in collaboration
with other PVOs…We have found these workshops to be invaluable, leaving participants with
solid and improved knowledge of the focus topics. 
The national staff development focus is reflected by a ‘seasoned’ PVO, which noted, 
“National staff development has been enhanced through participation in FAM-supported 
31
workshops. In addition, access to FAM’s resource library has been useful for field staff. 
The FAM Monetization Manual has been widely appreciated as a resource and reference 
tool.” 
In summary, FAM’s pursuit of all three of its objectives, (improved food aid standards, 
an expanded knowledge base, and more effective collaboration), has contributed 
significantly to the institution strengthening of its members. 
C. FAM Management 
The distinction between FAM’s coordination role and its management functions may 
seem small at first glance. However, it is important to underscore that FAM does not 
manage its members, because it is neither its mandate nor in its interest. 
Nevertheless, FAM does have a ‘management’ function, at least in administering its own 
roles and functions. Interviews with past and present coordinators suggest that managing 
FAM is a ‘fine art.’ Because of the fine line between even-handed facilitation and heavy￾handed manipulation, the coordinators must strike a clear balance. 
An earlier FAM Coordinator, who was present during the early part of the grant period 
being evaluated, was characterized by an SC member as less proactive than the present 
Coordinator. The two styles of management, however, are not in conflict, depending on 
how and under what conditions they are implemented. In fact, both styles were judged 
equally successful in keeping FAM on track, developing new initiatives, and continuing 
to effectively manage the grant. 
The present Coordinator is highly proactive, nudging and cajoling the different 
components of FAM along in their multiplicity of tasks. She sits on one Working Group 
and on the Steering Committee in formal roles. The Deputy Coordinator, less proactive 
by nature but equally effective in carrying out his role, sits on three WGs. Here, the fine 
line alluded to earlier is very important, given the special character of participation in the 
WGs. Similarly for the Steering Committee, the light-handed, but firm approach is 
essential in getting senior managers away from their ‘day jobs’ to focus on FAM. 
Nevertheless, they had high praise for the most recent past Coordinator, the present 
Coordinator, and her Deputy. 
Financial Management: FAM’s five year ISA budget is $1,780,000, factored out at 
$356,000 annually. This budget is managed by FAM coordinators under the auspices of 
CARE, the project holder since the ISA’s inception in 1992. CARE underwrites some 
grant costs related to FAM’s recent move to CARE’s Washington, D.C. office on K 
Street. That move was triggered by FAM’s desire to be more accessible to walk-in users. 
Because the move proved expensive, CARE decided to pick up some of the new rental 
and administrative costs. The CARE ‘subsidy’ means that more program funds are 
available. When one reviews the cumulative results of FAM’s efforts over the past 
several years, the $356K annual budget has all the earmarks of being cost effective. 
32
Given FAM’s value in supporting Title II, in rendering important economies of scale to 
USAID/FFP, and in providing the glue for an association of 17 individual Title II PVOs, 
it would clearly seem to offset the rather modest annual cost. 
We now turn briefly to the management of the Working Groups, which is as much a 
function of member organizations as it is FAM management. 
D. Working Group Coordination 
Working Group coordination is a responsibility of the PVO members who comprise 
them. FAM’s role is to facilitate the Group. Since some of this information has already 
been treated in the previous chapter, it will not be repeated. 
One general finding that has a strong bearing on all of the WGs is that if the WG does not 
have a specific, concrete product or result towards which it is working, the members tend 
to lose interest. One example is a WG that had a successful product, in this case, a 
manual. Once the product was completed, members’ interest in participating was 
purported to have waned. In this case, success bred indifference 
1. Monetization Working Group
This WG is the one cited in the above example. According to participants questioned, it 
is one of the smoothest running, most enthusiastic groups. In fairness to the others, this 
condition is related to the fact that the subject matter is specialized and therefore more 
manageable. This WG is perhaps one in search of a new product, and thereby, a renewed 
spirit. 
The MWG will shortly be reviewing the results of its four workshops offered to date. 
This will serve as an opportunity for the Group to assess its progress and set new targets, 
whether they are new training activities or new tools for use in the field. 
2. Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group
This WG has at times been constrained by weak attendance, due to heavy travel 
commitments of its members. Those interviewed, however, were positive in their praise
for the contributions of their fellow members. 
As in the case of the other groups, the M&E Working Group uses consultants to complete 
its technical work. In this respect, it is presently making headway in its process of 
developing a series of M&E toolkits, namely a compendium of monitoring tools, for the 
food aid sector. It is committed to completing this product on time. As noted earlier, this 
WG actively participates in FAM through its listserv, which it uses to address technical 
issues, announce workshops, and list new publications in the FSRC. 
33
3. Local Capacity Building Working Group
This WG has begun to show progress after a sluggish start. Some participants in the LCB 
WG realize what the constraints were and were not afraid to address them. Issues related 
to its slow start are the absence of expertise in the subject matter, and, therefore, a void 
created by lack of agreement on an appropriate product. 
Minimal response of LCB WG members to the questionnaire is itself perhaps indicative 
of a constraint. A good quote is worth a thousand words, as seen in the following: 
It is my impression that most of us on the LCB WG are practitioners, i.e., users of information,
rather than generators and systematizers of information. If the composition of the group included
a mix of researchers and practitioners, it might be easier to achieve synergies. 
This quote is meant to suggest that there is a lack of expertise in organizational 
development on the team. The new scope of work could help resolve this problem. 
4. Environmental Working Group
We have seen in the previous chapter the rave reviews of this group’s members on its 
performance. A combination of a passion for the environmental cause and very specific 
product-driven activities have given the group the claim to success seems to deserve. 
One constraint to the continued effort of this WG is structural in nature. It represents a 
variation on the theme of a product-driven orientation. Stated by an EWG member, it is, 
“the EWG had more interest when there were funds available for training. There was a 
product that was being offered. Now, it depends more on the interest of specific 
members.” 
Since it is not recognized by FFP as an ‘official’ WG, the EWG cannot access funding 
from FAM. Both the EWG and FAM need to make a case to FFP for formal recognition. 
E. Sustainability Issues 
Questions on the sustainability of FAM are not easily answered. The questions are 
complex and somewhat sensitive to the parties concerned, as well, namely the PVOs and 
USAID. Several issues need to be considered. 
First, in many senses FAM is seen as an instrument of USAID, a response to its Title II 
program requirements. One SC member characterized it as “a creature of USAID,” even 
though its formation was a voluntary act. In any case, FAM, in cooperation with FANta, 
contributes organizationally to meeting important technical requirements of Title II. 
Second, FAM is made up of non-profit organizations, only some of which have access to 
funds beyond those for operations, for example, from donations. This means that for 
Title II PVOs, there is a limited excess of funds for independently contributing to FAM 
34
on average. Another approach might be for WGs to seek support from foundations to 
continue their work. The SC has addressed the possibility of assessing a membership fee 
or at least some member contributions. The SC sees that it is in FAM’s best interest to
try to develop a source of support at least partially independent of FFP. 
Third, while various commercial options for marketing the FSRC’s services so as to at 
least cover its costs, for example, have been considered, most have been sidelined. The 
economies of scale to market FSRC services are simply not there. Support from food 
producers, for example, would presume to compromise FAM’s relationship with FFP. 
Commercializing FAM’s informational resources does not stack up well against evidence 
of other attempts to make such an enterprise cost-effective. 
Fourth, while FAM’s SC has considered options for sustaining the effort, it is legally 
circumscribed from using USAID resources (FAM staff or time) for exploring external 
opportunities. That is a perfect ‘catch-22’ situation. 
In the absence of any innovative answers, the evaluator can only say that the question of 
FAM’s sustainability will continue to test the ingenuity of both the PVOs and USAID. 
35
Chapter 5 
CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS LEARNED, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
This chapter offers an interpretation of some of the major findings from previous chapters 
in the form of conclusions and lessons learned. These, in turn, serve as the basis for 
subsequent recommendations. Recommendations made to the various parties of this 
activity are intended to be actionable, that is, in their manageable interest to carry out. 
A. Conclusions 
At this mid-point in the current grant, the FAM initiative is well along the way to 
achieving its intended results. As tracked in the performance table presented in Annex 5, 
excellent progress is being made in fulfilling its objectives. The following is a brief 
summary of cumulative results achieved to date under the FAM grant. 
FAM Website: First, the FAM website has for the most part seen increased usage by food 
aid/security professionals, including FAM member headquarters staff and, importantly, 
field staff. A dip in use occurred at one point during a personnel and logistical transition. 
The website is also well-used by USAID personnel. It is seen by FAM members as one 
of the most popular components of the FAM initiative, not only for its substantive 
contents, but as a mode of communicating with other members on matters of mutual 
interest, especially working group matters. The mentoring partnership with FHI has been 
very successful in supporting the development of a multi-functional, user-friendly, and 
sophisticated food aid/security information and communications resource. 
FAM-supported Workshops: FAM-supported workshops have been successful in 
imparting new technical approaches and knowledge on key aspects of food aid, as well as 
in fulfilling certain Title II requirements. At only the halfway point of the current grant, 
nine of the ten-targeted workshops have already been successfully delivered. Each of the 
Working Groups (WG) has used its workshops effectively in providing specific, state-of 
the-art technical information to home office and field staff alike. The spread effect of 
these workshops provides an economy of scale in the dissemination of Title II and 
general food aid matters not otherwise achievable. 
Food Aid/Security Manuals and Tools: In the matter of manuals and other tools, one 
WG, Monetization, has already completed a manual and successfully used it in 
workshops to improve the skill base in monetizing food aid. Both M&E and LCB WGs 
are evidencing clear movement in developing their respective manuals or toolkits. The 
Environmental WG has succeeded in integrating specific principles or regulations, 
namely Regulation 216, into member Title II food aid programs. 
36
Increased Knowledge of Food Security Matters: A proxy measure of members’ 
increased knowledge and understanding of food security issues is the number of 
organized meetings under the FAM grant. FAM has far exceeded the targeted number of 
organized meetings (no less than 25 organized meetings) in its support of brownbag 
discussions alone. During FY2000, 22 such discussions were held and in FY2001, seven 
of a planned 15 have been held. Other discussion venues include, importantly, WGs, the 
results of which are not only training activities and tools, but improved approaches to 
food aid initiatives. 
Improved Collaboration: Improved collaboration of FAM members as a product of 
annual meetings, joint program initiatives, mentorship relationships, and jointly 
developed tools and methods is evidenced in part in the success of the above-mentioned 
components. A highly positive perception by PVO members of an improved sense of 
collaboration among organizations that do not usually cooperate is another strong sign. 
An exception is the USAID/FFP perception that it did not have clear evidence of 
improved collaboration of members. 
Increased Autonomy: Increased autonomy of FAM and its membership in carrying out 
the above components is calibrated by the degree to which these components are self￾starting and, conversely, the degree to which they require a concerted effort by FAM staff 
to manage an activity. While difficult to measure cleanly, a proxy for this achievement 
is, as for the previous result, the degree of success of FAM components in achieving their 
objectives. Thus far, there is clear evidence that the WGs have been very successful in 
using FAM to jump-start their activities. The FSRC, with the strong support of its 
mentoring partnership, has also successfully become a vital tool for FAM members. 
Autonomy of the overall FAM initiative itself is complicated by the issues raised on 
sustainability in the previous chapter. Since FAM staff are precluded from devoting any 
time to fundraising, the future sustainability of the initiative rests in the hands of the 
Steering Committee, the general membership, and the funding decisions of USAID/FFP. 
B. Lessons Learned and Recommendations for FAM and FAM Members 
FAM Coordinators & Steering Committee
Lesson Learned: Motivating FAM towards the Future. Interviews with SC members 
pointed to the supposition that FAM may not continue indefinitely under its present 
structure, in which it is fully dependent on USAID/FFP funding. 
Recommendation: Concerned PVOs who are FAM members should independently 
develop a detailed framework for a plan and assign a committee to explore the 
continuation of FAM’s key functions into the future. Parameters of this plan should 
include the future relationship with USAID/FFP, potential sources of outside funding, a 
vision of what a FAM future would look like, and the possibility of continuing the key 
functions of FAM as an entity partially or completely independent of USAID/FFP 
funding. 
37
Lesson Learned: Enhancing FAM’s Role with USAID/FFP. Several of the FAM 
members interviewed have a perception that USAID/FFP is not aware of or does not 
recognize the full value of FAM to the Title II program. Conversely, representatives of 
FFP perceive that a gap exists between theory and reality and there has been little or no 
appearance of the value-added by FAM. FFP simply does not know what FAM is 
achieving. In addition, the Office perceives that the PVOs do not credit FFP for 
supporting their work. 
Recommendation: The Steering Committee (SC) should call a meeting to openly 
explore FFP’s less-than-satisfied perception of FAM with the membership. The SC 
should then meet with FFP in an open dialogue conducted in a frank but ‘appreciative’ 
manner, and to agree on concrete steps for ameliorating the situation. 
Lesson Learned: Improved FFP-FAM Communications. Communications between 
FAM and FFP are perceived by both parties as less than adequate. A continuation of 
these perceptions can only lead to a deterioration of the relationship. 
Recommendation: FAM Coordinators and one or two locally-based SC members 
should organize and hold regular meetings with USAID/FFP in order to help improve the 
relationship, to ensure that FAM is fulfilling FFP’s needs, and to report on progress. The 
discussion might include the provision for a PVO-designated person seconded to FFP to 
act as a liaison with FAM and member PVOs. Additional ways of enhancing interaction 
between FAM and FFP would be that FFP staff participates at least periodically in FAM 
WGs and in WG-organized workshops held in the Washington, D.C. area. 
Lesson Learned: Recognition of FAM Services. FAM services are not equally 
recognized or used across the membership, including their field staff. 
Recommendation: FAM members, in cooperation with FAM staff, should develop an 
initiative to inform their staff and constituencies of the services available to them through 
FAM, so that they more readily recognize FAM’s role and contribution. 
Working Groups
Lesson Learned: Using a results, team-building orientation. Working Groups (WGs) 
were seen to tire in the absence of a desired product or expected result. Even the more 
effective WGs, once a product had been completed, have sometimes lost their motivation. 
Recommendation: WGs should always attempt to agree as soon as is feasible on a 
‘product,’ even if that product is a ‘process’ intended to get members to agree on a plan 
of action. Where feasible, this process should be facilitated by technical advisers on staff 
with member organizations, preferably with strong organizational—including team
building—skills. 
Lesson Learned: Obtaining economies of scale from Working Groups. The 
Environmental Working Group (EWG) achieved a broad impact through its workshop on 
the training-of-trainers (TOT) in environmental compliance. The TOT approach not only 
expands the scale of the training function, providing younger staff with valuable training 
experience, but also broadens the spread of critical information, and contributes to the 
growth of the knowledge base. 
38
Recommendation: The other WGs should strongly consider use of the TOT approach in 
planning their next workshop(s), where relevant. On a related matter, because of the 
significant success the EWG has had in fulfilling FAM objectives, the SC should request 
recognition of that Group from FFP, thereby formalizing its contributions and making it 
eligible for FAM funds. 
FSRC
Lesson Learned: Placing the bibliographic database online. The process of 
incorporating the collection’s 8,000 documents and selected abstracts on the website has 
encountered several snags. While the recent acquisition of a pro bono information 
technology specialist is a step in the right direction and may produce the desired result, it 
is not ‘guaranteed.’ 
Recommendation: The Steering Committee needs to support FAM coordinators and the 
TIS to organize whatever resources are necessary and support completion of the on-line 
bibliographic database. 
Lesson Learned: Digitizing the FSRC library collection. Initial discussions have taken 
place on the possibility of digitizing key parts, if not all, of the FSRC collection. This
collection represents a significant contribution to the state-of-the-art literature on food aid 
and food security. Its availability to food aid professionals worldwide would represent a 
large step forward in the evolution of the FSRC. 
Recommendation: The Steering Committee and FAM coordinators should speed up the 
search for a means (institutional and/or financial) to digitize the library. 
Lesson Learned: Some useful tips. Individual FAM members were almost all highly 
praiseworthy of the FSRC. A few had suggestions to even further enhance FAM 
management and use of the FSRC. 
Recommendation: On a monthly basis, the FSRC should ‘flash’ the membership a 
reminder that it still exists and is ready to serve, accompanied perhaps by a brief synopsis 
of one or two new state-of-the-art publications. FSRC should coordinate closely with the 
WGs to ensure that summaries of organized presentations are sent out and to identify WG
key resource persons and materials. 
39
Annex 1: Scope of Work 
Back to main document
Scope of Work
MID-TERM EVALUATION 
of 
FOOD AID MANAGEMENT
Institutional Support Assistance Program
1.0 Background: 
In 1989 five U.S. private voluntary organizations (PVOs) created Food Aid Management (FAM) to “promote the efficient
and effective use of food aid resources to help alleviate hunger and contribute to food security”. FAM was awarded a five￾year follow-on USAID ISA grant beginning in September 1998 to continue supporting P.L. 480 Title II-funded 
Cooperating Sponsors (PVOs) in their existing or planned activities. Eleven years later, while the goal of FAM remains the 
same, the FAM membership consortium has grown to include 17 U.S. based PVOs. FAM works with these CSs to achieve
this goal by managing the following three objectives: 
• facilitate and promote the development of food aid standards, 
• promote the food aid and food security knowledge base of PVOs, USAID staff, and other collaborators through
information exchange and coordination, 
• facilitate collaboration between PVOs, USAID, and appropriate development and humanitarian professionals by
organizing fora of discussion. 
FAM does not implement P.L. 480 Title II food programs, its Cooperating Sponsor (CS) members do. FAM’s objectives
and activities were designed to support the Office of Food for Peace’s Strategic Objective 2 (SO2): "Increased effectiveness 
of FFP’s Partners in carrying out Title II development activities with measurable results related to food security with a 
primary focus on household nutrition and agricultural productivity". FAM accomplishes its goals while focusing its efforts
on activities that support the achievement of FFP’s Intermediate Result 1 (IR1): "Strengthened capabilities of PVOs, 
USAID Missions, and FFP to design, monitor, and support programs". 
As a consortium, FAM works closely with its members to define activities, and to actively promote the progress of 
activities to agreed-upon goals. These activities include the implementation of working groups collaborating on common 
themes, which are priorities for members, namely: Monitoring and Evaluation, Monetization, Local Capacity Building
(LCB), and the Environment (EWG). FAM also manages the Food Security Resource Center (FSRC), publishes the Food 
Forum bulletin, maintains an active website, and implements several other food security information sharing activities
including inter-organizational workshops. 
Measuring the links to how FAM activities directly or indirectly impact Title II food security programming is beyond the 
scope of FAM’s ISA objectives. As a non-implementing, information sharing, coordination body, FAM’s efficiency
depends upon the consistent monitoring of activities directly related to FAM objectives. In the case of the FAM
workshops, publications, and website FAM has set up mechanisms to track how the information is being disseminated, 
used, and potentially revised. By effectively managing and monitoring information exchange, collaboration, improved food
aid standards, and the other capacity building activities by encouraging collaboration and information exchange among its 
17 PVO members, FAM’s contribution to Title II programming, through support of FFP’s Objective and Intermediate
Result is unique. The Title II DAP and FY99 ISA Guidance calls for a mid-term assessment of the project in the third year. 
The attached FAM M&E Chart and Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) list the objectives, activities, indicators,
and their frequency of measurement for the life of the grant. 
2.0 Purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation:
The overall purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to assess the progress in achieving planned results and to refine program
activities and targets accordingly. The mid-term review should determine whether the program is being implemented in a timely 
and cost-effective way, and if the program's performance objectives are on track. 
2.1 Focus and Key Questions to be Addressed by the Evaluation:
Annex 1, Page 1
Specifically, the mid-term review should generate and use qualitative and quantitative information in order to: review
appropriateness of the program activities with respect to the original ISA problem analysis; determine overall progress towards
achieving targets; identify constraints, difficulties, and successes; refine targets if needed; and make relevant recommendations 
to improve the performance, or, as appropriate suggest modifications or discontinuance of activities. 
In addition to the above, the Consultant will constructively assess the following aspects of the FAM program and provide 
response to the following questions:
• Management (efficiency, effectiveness, leadership, budget, etc. ). 
• Progress (rate and trend) and process in achievement of Objectives, Activities, and Performance Indicators- planned versus
actual. 
• Are the program's targets appropriate?; i.e. have the intended success rates been under or over-estimated?; do the targets 
need revising and why?
• What plans are in place or proposed to handle the identified constraints?
• M&E system to ensure that all monitored indicators are being objectively measured, include specific measurement units, 
and have clear links to program activities. 
• The degree of change in internal institutional strengthening (improved capacity) of FAM as well as the CS members, as a 
result of FAM's program activities. 
• Has the intent of the capacity building focus changed as a result of the ISA?; what difference has the ISA made to FAM and
the CS members?
• Likelihood that intended benefits of FAM's ISA-funded program has been complemented by resources from the ISA
recipients (CSs). 
• Collective accomplishments and efficiencies achieved because of collaboration efforts with CSs. 
• What best practices has FAM identified and have these been effectively distributed?
• Sustainability of FAM activities and CSs capacity. 
3.0 Methodology:
The following methods should be used to evaluate the critical areas of concern noted above and to determine appropriate
strategies to improve project implementation and impact:
A. Prepare an implementation plan for the evaluation process. Discuss and agree on plan with FAM staff. 
B. Review FAM's: ISA proposal document, Annual Performance Reports, Detailed Implementation (DIPs) and Annual 
Operating Plans (AOPs), web site and Food Security Resource Center (FSRC), annual budgets and financial reports, 
M&E-related plan and data, web site use reports, working group and other meeting minutes, and other relevant
information that indicate/record the status of FAM's activities and performance. 
C. If any FAM activities are planned during the review period, make direct observations of the activities to assess quality 
and impact. 
D. When choosing all samples to be interviewed and/or surveyed, consider and use (when appropriate), a "purposeful
sample" selection criteria and process that will provide justification of sample choices. 
E. Communicate (in person, e-mail, or by phone) with key stakeholders, (i.e. FAM staff, CS members, steering committee 
members, working group chairs and members, FFP, etc.) to elicit and discuss their perspectives on FAM's progress, to
identify concerns and possible areas of modification, and to assess the program's implementation process and
achievement of goals. 
F. Review FAM workshop/training reports, participant evaluations, and pre/post tests where available. Tabulate and
analyze the rate of achievement to-date (number and type of activities, participant attendance, etc.). Conduct mini￾surveys [through use of randomized spot checks (in person, e-mail, or by phone)] of former workshop/training
participants and their organizations (to measure change in knowledge, skills, and practice resulting from such FAM
capacity building events). By assessing the information gathered, determine the likely affect and trend of this
achievement on intended program impact, i.e. to improve PVO capacity to design, monitor, and support Title II 
programs. 
G. Undertake visits to CS member headquarter offices as needed to discuss particular topics with key CS staff.
Annex 1, Page 2
H. Facilitate focus group discussions with key stakeholders to obtain key-information as needed. 
I. As much data and responses should be compiled and documented for comparison with the baseline and for the final 
year evaluation.
J. Conduct progress meeting once every two weeks with FAM staff in order to inform and consult on the mid-term
review process. 
K. Review "Indicator Performance Tracking Table" (IPTT), assess indicators, and update for attachment to draft and final 
reports. 
L. Present and confer initial evaluation findings with FAM staff and other key FAM stakeholders. Prepare a draft report 
for review and feedback by FAM staff and key FAM stakeholders. 
M. Prepare final report with logical and justifiable recommendations. 
4.0 Time Schedule:
The time frame envisaged for the evaluation process is 4 weeks (20 working days). The review will commence in March 
2000. 
5.0 Deliverables:
A draft report prepared within one week of completing the review work. Final Report submitted by the Consultant to USAID 
and FAM (lazer printed hard copy and on a 3.5 diskette in Word) within two weeks of completing the review work. 
6.0 Evaluation Team:
The evaluation process will be led by one Consultant who will have extensive experience and/or understanding of Title II food
programming. In order to make the Mid-Term Evaluation more inclusive, participatory, and a productive learning experience 
for FAM, the Consultant will work closely during the review process with the FAM staff. CS member and FFP staff, working 
group chairs, and steering committee members will directly assist the Consultant where appropriate and available. 
Annex 1, Page 3
Annex 2: Persons Contacted/Interviewed 
Back to main document
Abdou, Irene – Steering Committee (Counterpart) 
Ameyaw, David – Monitoring & Evaluation Working Group (ADRA)
Anaele, Sabinus – Environmental Working Group (TechnoServ) 
Bell, Bob – Steering Committee (CARE)
Campbell, Ben – Environmental Working Group ((World Vision) 
Carlson, Gail – Steering Committee (Counterpart) 
Crumbly, Angelique – Cognizant Technical Officer, USAID/FFP 
Davis, Tom – Consultant, Monitoring & Evaluation Working Group
Devendorf, George – Steering Committee (Mercy Corps)
Elkin, Barry – Environmental Working Group, Steering Committee (ACDI-VOCA) 
Evans, Dave – Steering Committee (FHI) 
Ewart, Tom – Steering Committee Mercy Corps) 
Gilbert, Steve – Mendez-England (contractor to FFP) 
Harrigan, Paige – Acting Coordinator (Fmr.—presently FANta) 
Majernik, Juli – Monetization Working Group (CRS) 
Markunas, Jeanne – Deputy Director, USAID/FFP 
Ng’asi, Adrian – Local Capacity Building Working Group (ACDI-VOCA)
Pareja, Mario – Environmental Working Group (CARE)
Purviance, Randy – Steering Committee (ADRA) 
Truscott, Peter – Steering Committee (ADRA) 
Russell, Mara – Coordinator FAM
Ryan, T. J. – Coordinator FAM (Fmr.) 
Scheffel, Dorothy – Monitoring & Evaluation Working Group (World Vision) 
Schmirler, Trisha – Technical Information Specialist FAM 
Swindale, Anne – Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group (FANta) 
Willard, Alice, Local Capacity Building Working Group (FANta) 
Wright, Keith – Steering Committee (FHI)
Zodrow, Steve – Deputy Coordinator FAM
Annex 2, Page 1
Annex 3: Documents Reviewed 
Back to main document
Christian Reformed World Relief Committee. Partnering to Building and Measure Organizational 
Capacity. Lessons from NGOs Around the World. (Use of Appreciative Inquiry Approach to 
Organizational Capacity Building). 1997.
Food Aid Management. Annual Performance Report. FY 00
___________________. Annual Report: Food Security Resource Center FY 99/00
___________________. “ “ Monitoring & Evaluation Working Group FY 00
___________________. “ “ Monetization Working Group FY 00
___________________. “ “ Local Capacity Working Group FY 00
___________________. Meeting Notes, Environmental Working Group 11/29/00
___________________ Evaluation of FHI Mentoring Agreement FY 00
___________________. Monitoring &n Evaluation Formats: Results FY 00
___________________. Notes from the FAM General Meeting Held in San Diego 6/15- 
 16, 2000. 
___________________. By-Laws November 18, 2000
___________________. Institutional Support Assistance (FY 99-03) & Detailed
 Implementation Plan (FY 00/01) 
___________________. Cost Savings for Move (CARE Contribution) 1/01
___________________. Annual Budgets (FY 99-03)
___________________. Annual Operating Plan FY 00
___________________. Correspondence to USAID/FFP 12-11-00
___________________. Member Survey 1/00
___________________. History of FAM 1989-2000, PowerPoint Presentation, 6/00 
___________________. Food Forum 3d Qtr. 2000, Issue 53
___________________. FSRC User Records FY99–01, 2d Qtr.(FAM/Non-FAM) 3/01
Annex 3, Page 1
Annex 4: Questionnaires/Topical Guides Devised for Use in the Mid-term 
Back to main document
Questions for Key Informant Interviews with FAM Coordinator/Deputy Coordinator (3/23/01—jpm) 
1. When did you join FAM? What was the staffing situation when you joined?
2. What expectations did you have when joining FAM about its role, your workload, and expectations from
members, from USAID? What was the reality?
3. What has been the most satisfying aspect of your work? Least satisfying?
4. What does USAID expect from you? Member organizations? CARE? How able are you to meet their 
expectations?
5. What do you feel you and your staff do best? Least well?
6. What are the most successful results of FAM during your tenure here? Least successful? Why? What to do 
to improve the least successful results?
7. Rank in order what you believe represents the “best” of FAM: __ Working Groups, __ Workshops, __ 
FSRC (website, listserv, library, etc) __ Annual meetings, __ Brown Bag lunches, __ Steering Committee, 
etc. 
8. Where do you feel FAM could use the biggest improvements? Define/Describe. 
9. What are largest organizational constraints to FAM achieving its higher-level results? (e.g., financial—
why? Etc.) 
10. Which are your most difficult clients? Why? What do you do to meet their complaints or address what they 
believe are shortcomings?
11. What do you believe should be the ideal structure of FAM?
12. If you were to reorganize FAM, what kind of mechanism or instrumentality would it look like?
13. Would you like to see FAM renewed? What do you need to do to ensure that?
Annex 4, Page 1
Food Aid Management/Institutional Support Assistance (FAM/ISA) Cooperative Agreement Mid-Term 
Evaluation—FAM Environmental Working Group Questionnaire (3/21/01—jpm)
This questionnaire is one of a series of instruments aimed at assessing the FAM/ISA program activity. Your
Working Group’s contribution is important to the overall functioning of FAM. The questions are a mix of past
performance/expected results and touch on the effectiveness of FAM for both your Working Group and your
organization. Please respond to the extent practicable in the space provided, and return to me (John Mason, Mid￾term Evaluation Consultant) by return email by COB TUESDAY 27 MARCH. Thank you very much for your
cooperation. 
1. Which specific aspects of the Environmental Working Group’s efforts has your organization been
participating in? What are your organization’s roles and responsibilities in this effort? Define 1-2 efforts 
a) 
b) 
2. What are two-three specific applications of the Environmental Documentation Manual (EDM) by end-users 
(in your response, please denote which end-users)? Define 2-3 applications. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
3. What improvements in your organization’s food aid/security program have resulted/will result from
application of environmental compliance practices embodied in the EDM and workshop training? Define 1-
2 ways. 
a) 
b) 
4. More specifically, how has the EDM and workshop training influenced your organization’s management of
your food aid/security programs? If applicable, define 1-2 specific ways. 
a) 
b) 
5. How has the Environmental Working Group’s efforts contributed to your organization’s implementation of
more targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways.
a) 
b) 
6. What are some best practices that derive from the process of developing the manual, its use in training
workshops, and its field applications? Name and define 1-2.
a) 
b) 
7. Name some specific examples of how a) the Working Group and b) your organization’s home and field
program managers use/have used the FAM Food Security Resource Center (including the website, 
DEVECOL database, hard copy documents, other?) What are FSRC’s benefits to them? Name and define 
1-2 for each. 
a) 
b) 
8. Ho well has your Working Group functioned in achieving its intended results? What are its strong
points/weak points? How might you change the functioning of the Group to make it more responsive to
your organization’s environmental activities? In what related areas would you like to see new topics 
introduced? Define 1-2 points for each. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
9. What is the value added of the FAM/ISA to the Environmental Working Group’s initiatives and efforts?
Where has FAM/ISA perhaps been “less than optimal?” How, if at all, might the FAM/ISA be redesigned 
to meet the ongoing challenges of the Title II program? Define 1-2 points for each. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP AND COOPERATION. Regards, John Mason 
Annex 4, Page 2
Mid-Term Evaluation – Questionnaire for the General Membership – Food Aid Management/Institutional 
Support Assistance Agreement (3/13/01) 
1. In what specific areas of food aid and food security would you say the effects of FAM’s work have been
most felt? Name one or two areas, with a brief explanation. 
a) 
b) 
2) How has FAM specifically supported improved measurement of Title II impact on food security? List a few 
ways. 
a) 
b) 
3) In what areas of food security should FAM emphasize capacity building? In a) enhancing national and affiliate 
staff development or b) building grassroots capacity at the local, community level? Briefly explain. 
a) 
b) 
4) How has FAM contributed to the impact of your organization’s programs on food security (e.g., on sustainability 
vs. creating dependency)? Briefly describe 1-2 contributions. 
a) 
b) 
5) How do you see FAM contributing to the establishment of food aid standards used by your organization in
employing PL 480/Title II resources? Describe a few contributions. 
a) 
b) 
6) How has FAM-supported training contributed to your staff’s implementation of programs—for both HQ and the 
field? In what areas of expertise could you use more training? Describe one or two specific ways/areas. 
a) 
b) 
7) How would you make the resources of the FAM website and listserv more accessible and user-friendly to your 
organization’s field staff? Define one or two ways. 
a) 
b) 
8) Are you evaluated by your organization specifically on your work for FAM?
__ Yes. __ No. a) If yes, list a few of the criteria. B) If no, why not?
a) 
b) 
9) What are some related arrangements such as FANta/FAM that FAM might leverage to contribute to the state of
the art in food security in the remaining year and a half of the present ISA? Describe a few. 
a) 
b) 
10) What are some specific ways in which the Working Groups have served a useful purpose for your organization?
Are there new purposes to which you would put the Working Groups?
a) 
b) 
11) What is the effect of USAID’s R4 (“results review/resource request”) requirement on your organization’s 
contribution to FAM? How does it affect your program management? Describe. 
a) 
b) 
12) What are some of the more memorable Best Practices that derive from Working Groups or other FAM
activities? List briefly. 
a) 
b) 
13) What do you see as possible new mechanisms for a post-2003 FAM/ISA? How different would it be from 
the present agreement? Explain 
a) 
b) 
14) In what ways is the “whole” of FAM organizationally greater than the sum of its parts? Less than?
a) 
b) 
Annex 4, Page 3
FAM Local Capacity Building (LCB) Working Group Questionnaire (3/20/01—jpm)
1. Which FAM-supported LCB efforts has your organization actively participated in? What roles and
responsibilities has your organization taken in the Group? Define and discuss 1-2 efforts/roles. 
a) 
 b) 
2. What progress has been made by the Working Group’s in operationalizing a set of practical definitions of
local capacity? Towards completing a survey of member field offices to determine approaches, tools, 
resources and measurements? Define 1-2 steps and 1-2 achievements of the survey. 
a) 
 b) 
3. What applications of your organization’s own capacity building process to improved food aid/security
needs have resulted from the LCB Working Group? How effective have these been. What are some of the 
constraints? Define 1-2 for cases. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
4. What has the LCB Working Group contributed to your organization’s know-how in implementing more 
targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 examples? 
a) 
b) 
5. What if any improvements in your organization’s program management can you attribute to FAM￾supported LCB Define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
6. How useful was the LCB Spectrum Activity in helping your organization to think about different ways to
improve targeting of Title II programs? What areas of LCB benefited more so than others and what are 
some of the constraints to LCB uncovered by the Spectrum Activity? Briefly define 1-2 cases of such
thinking and 1-2 for benefits/constraints.. 
a) 
b) 
7. What are the trade-offs of your organization’s own capacity building needs (e.g., management and staff)
with those of partner and community needs? What are some constraints to focusing on only LCB needs
versus your organization’s own “LCB” needs? List 1-2 trade-offs and constraints. 
a) 
b) 
8. What are some examples of best/less-than-successful practices derived from LCB workshops and other 
fora? What progress has been made in establishing an LCB curriculum? In developing LCB measures 
(indicators). Define 1-2 examples of practices, progress, and measurement. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
9. What are some specific uses the LCB Working Group and your organization have made of the FAM
website? How useful have you found the website for facilitating your Group’s work? Define 1-2
examples/uses. 
a) 
b) 
10. How well has your Working Group functioned? What are its strong points/weak points? How might you
change the functioning of the Working Group to make it more responsive to your and fellow member 
organization needs? Define 1-2 cases 
a) 
b) 
11. What are some specific benefits of the FANta/FAM Technical Advisory Group to your organization’s LCB
activities? In what areas would you like to see new or related topics introduced? Define 1-2 benefits and 1-
2 new/related topics. 
a) 
b) 
Annex 4, Page 4
FAM M&E Working Group Questionnaire (3/14/01—jpm) 
1. Which FAM-supported M&E efforts has your organization actively participated in? What has such
participation involved as far as roles and responsibilities? Define and discuss 1-2 efforts/roles. 
a) 
 b) 
2. What progress has been made by the Working Group’s development of Title II M&E tools? In developing
user manuals? Define 1-2 areas. 
a) 
 b) 
3. What applications to your organization’s M&E food aid/security needs have resulted from FAM-supported
M&E? How effective have these been. What are some of their constraints? Define 1-2 cases. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
4. How have FAM-supported M&E tools contributed to your organization having more targeted, people-level
food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways? 
a) 
b) 
5. What if any improvements in your organization’s program management can you attribute to FAM￾supported M&E? Define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
6. How effectively have FAM-supported M&E tool kits transferred to use in your field programs? How user 
friendly are they to field staff? Briefly define.
a) 
b) 
7. How useful have indicators identified under the FAM-supported M&E Working Group been in measuring 
progress of your organization’s food aid/security programs? What areas of measurement require more 
work? Briefly define 1-2 cases. 
a) 
b) 
8. What effort has the M&E Working Group made to incorporate end-user communities into the M&E 
process? What efforts are being made to do so in the future? Define 1-2 efforts for each. 
a) 
b) 
9. How useful have the FAM-supported M&E workshops been to your organization’s M&E efforts? What
were some especially strong points participants took away from the workshops? What needs strengthening 
in M&E workshops? Define 1-2 examples. 
a) 
b) 
10. What are some specific uses the M&E Working Group has made of the FAM website? How useful have 
you found the website for facilitating your Group’s work? Define 1-2 examples/uses. 
a) 
b) 
11. How well has your Working Group functioned? What are its strong points/weak points? How would you
change the functioning of the Working Group to make it more responsive to your organization’s needs?
Define 1-2 cases 
a) 
b) 
12. What are some specific benefits of the FANta/FAM Technical Advisory Group to your organization’s
M&E activities? In what areas would you like to see new topics introduced? Define 1-2 cases. 
a) 
b) 
Annex 4, Page 5
Food Aid Management Cooperative Agreement Mid-Term Evaluation 
Questionnaire for Monitoring & Evaluation Workshop Participants 
(Sampling Workshop—Westminster, MD 5/99; Data Analysis Workshop, Nairobi 11/00)
This questionnaire is one of a series of instruments aimed at assessing the FAM Cooperative Agreement. Please 
reflect on the effectiveness of the Workshop specifically for its applications to your organization’s Title II program
activities. You have been randomly selected to participate in this brief survey. Your responses are confidential. 
Please respond to the extent practicable in the space provided, and return (to John Mason, Mid-term Evaluation
Consultant) by email, 
Close of Business, MONDAY, APRIL 2.
Specify which Workshop you attended: Westminster__ Nairobi__ 
Thank you very much for your cooperation. . 
1. What is your specific role and responsibility within your organization for monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) activities? Briefly define 1-2 roles/responsibilities 
a) 
b) 
2. What were the learning points from the Sampling/Data Analysis workshops most relevant to your work in
Title II activities? Briefly, list 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
3. How useful did you find the M&E tools used in the workshops? How useful were they as practical, applied 
tools in your work in the home office or in the field? Define 1-2 points for each. 
a) 
b) 
4. What applications of workshop learning points have been most useful in improving your organization’s 
food aid/security program? Least useful? Define 1-2 examples for each. 
a) 
b) 
5. How have the workshop training and M&E methods and techniques specifically influenced your 
organization’s management of your food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 specific ways. 
a) 
b) 
6. How, if at all, have the workshops and tools acquired contributed specifically to your organization’s 
implementation of more targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways. 
a) 
b) 
7. What are some best practices that you derived from the workshop? Name and define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
8. To what extent did the workshop familiarize you with the FAM Food Security Resource Center (including
the website, Monetization listserv, hard copy documents, other)? Because of that, how frequently do you
use FSRC? Define 1-2 ways/How frequently.
a) 
b) 
9. Overall, how would you evaluate the workshop and the accompanying tools for their effectiveness and 
practicality in supporting your Title II work? Briefly define. 
YOUR HELP AND COOPERATION ARE APPRECIATED. Regards, John Mason 
Annex 4, Page 6
FAM Monetization Working Group Mid-Term Evaluation Questionnaire 3/19/01—jpm)
This questionnaire is one of a series of instruments aimed at assessing the FAM program activity. Your Working 
Group’s contribution is important to the overall functioning of FAM. The questions are partly retrospective, partly
prospective. Please respond to the extent practicable in the space provided, and return to me (John Mason, Mid-term
Evaluation Consultant) by return email by COB FRIDAY 23 MARCH. Thank you very much for your cooperation. 
1. Which specific aspects of the Monetization Working Group’s efforts has your organization been
participating in? What are your organization’s roles and responsibilities in this effort? Define 1-2 efforts 
a) 
b) 
2. What are two-three specific applications of the monetization manual by end-users (please define who end￾users are)? Define 2-3 applications. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
3. In what ways has application of the monetization manual by your organization resulted in more effective 
food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways. 
a) 
b) 
4. How far along is the development of a training module to accompany the manual? What are the results of
tests of the manual in workshops? Define how far and 1-2 results. 
a) 
b) 
5. How has the manual and workshop training influenced your organization’s management of your food
aid/security programs? If applicable, define 1-2 specific ways. 
a) 
b) 
6. How has the monetization effort of the Working Group contributed to your organization’s implementation 
of more targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways. 
a) 
b) 
7. What are some best practices that derive from the process of developing the manual, its use in training
workshops, and its field applications? Name and define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
8. How do your organization’s home and field program managers use the Monetization ListServ? What are 
its benefits to them? Define 1-2 for each. 
a) 
b) 
9. How well has your Working Group functioned in achieving its results? What are its strong points/weak
points? How might you change the functioning of the Group to make it more responsive to your
organization’s monetization activities? In what related areas would you like to see new topics introduced? 
Define 1-2 points for each. 
a) 
b) 
c) 
Annex 4, Page 7
FAM Steering Committee Questionnaire (3/27/01—jpm) 
1. How long have you been on the Steering Committee?
2. What is your role on the Steering Committee? How does that function?
3. How would you describe the function of the Steering Committee?
4. What are some of the major issues that drive the Steering Committee?
5. How does the Steering Committee operate? How are meeting agendas set? How are decisions made?
6. How well do the new by-laws function in giving direction to the Steering Committee? Why did it take so
long to develop the by-laws? What advantage do they have for some of the smaller PVOs?
7. What are some of the constraints on the Steering Committee and how it works?
8. What are the major benefits of the Steering Committee?
9. What direct effects does the Steering Committee have on FAM’s agenda/operations?
10. How would you describe the major thrust of FAM? What are the most important things it does?
11. What is FAM’s value-added? In what ways does it add up to a whole that is greater than the sum of its 
parts? 
12. What are some of the important constraints to FAM achievements?
13. What do you see as FAM’s importance to USAID? 
14. Where do you think improvements in FAM can be made?
15. What relationship do you, as a member of the Steering Committee, have with USAID/FFP officials? 
Specifically with the USAID COTAR? 
16. What do you feel the prospects are for the continuation of FAM under a new agreement?
17. What efforts have the Steering Committee made to diversify the funding sources of FAM? How important
is this for FAM or an organization such as FAM?
Annex 4, Page 8
FAM Working Group Focus Group Questionnaire (jpm/Mar. 22, 2001) 
1. What is the major purpose of your WG?
2. How was the purpose of the WG generated?
3. What kind of cooperation occurs among members? 
4. How are WG members selected?
5. How is the WG leader(s) chosen?
6. How are WG meeting agendas set?
7. How are meetings called? Who calls them?
8. How is the division of labor decided?
9. How do you arrive at decisions?
10. Is WG membership seen as a privilege/drag?
11. Is it seen as an extra part of the member’s job?
12. Are WG members evaluated by their org. for 
participation in WGs? How?
13. Why do some WGs seem to be ahead of others 
in their work/progress?
14. Is there competition among orgs. In the WGs?
 If yes, what is that like?
15. How well is the purpose of the WG understood 
by your org’s sr. management?
16. Does you sr. mgt. see the importance of the 
WGs to the org’s overall goals/objs?
 In what ways? 
17. What interactions does the WG have with 
FAM coordinators? How often? Quality of?
18. What does the FAM/FoodSecResCtr contribute 
 to your WG?
19. What leadership role does FAM play for the WG?
20. How does the WG reflect overall FAM goals/ 
objs? What does it contribute to the 
achievement of those goals?
21. What if any is the role of FANta in your WG?
22. How does FANta make its inputs?
23. What is the value-added of FANta?
24. What is the relationship bet. The WG and FFP?
25. How does the work of your WG reflect the 
goals & objs of FFP?
26. Where are the impacts of your WG most felt?
At what level of food aid/security program impact?
Annex 4, Page 9
Food Aid Management Cooperative Agreement Mid-Term Evaluation 
Questionnaire for Local Capacity Building Workshop Participants 
(Philadelphia—November 1999)
This questionnaire is one of a series of instruments aimed at assessing the FAM Cooperative Agreement. Please 
reflect on the effectiveness of the Workshop specifically for its applications to your organization’s Title II program
activities. You have been randomly selected to participate in this brief survey. Your responses are confidential. 
Please respond to the extent practicable in the space provided, and return to me, John Mason, Mid-term Evaluation
Consultant) by email, Close of Business, WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
. 
1. What is your specific role and responsibility within your organization for local capacity building (LCB)?
Briefly define 1-2 roles/responsibilities 
a) 
b) 
2. What were the learning points from the LCB workshop most relevant to your work in Title II activities?
Briefly, list 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
3. How useful did you find the LCB Spectrum Activity as a workshop tool? How useful do you believe it will 
be in the application to a) field and b) home office programs? Define 1-2 points for each.
a) 
b) 
4. What applications of workshop learning points have the most potential for building local capacity in your
organization’s food aid/security program? Least useful? Define 1-2 examples for each. 
a) 
b) 
5. In what ways do you see the workshop training specifically influencing your organization’s management of
your food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 specific ways. 
a) 
b) 
6. How, if at all, do you see the workshop training contributing to your organization’s implementation of 
more targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways.
a) 
b) 
7. What are some best practices that you derived from the workshop? Name and define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
8. To what extent did the workshop familiarize you with the FAM Food Security Resource Center (FSRC) 
(including the website, listserv, hard copy documents, other)? If you received some familiarity in FSRC 
because of the workshop, how frequently do you use FSRC? Define 1-2 ways/How frequently. 
a) 
b) 
9. Overall, how would you evaluate the workshop for effectiveness and practicality in supporting your Title II
work? Briefly define. 
YOUR HELP AND COOPERATION ARE APPRECIATED. Regards, John Mason 
Annex 4, Page 10
Food Aid Management Cooperative Agreement Mid-Term Evaluation 
Questionnaire for Monetization Workshop Participants 
(India, Oct. 2000/Peru, Jan.-Feb. 2001)
This questionnaire is one of a series of instruments aimed at assessing the FAM Cooperative Agreement. Please 
reflect on the effectiveness of the Workshop specifically for its applications to your organization’s Title II program
activities. You have been randomly selected to participate in this brief survey. Your responses are confidential. 
Please respond to the extent practicable in the space provided, and return to me, John Mason, Mid-term Evaluation
Consultant) by email, Close of Business, WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
. 
1. What is your specific role and responsibility within your organization for monetization activities? Briefly 
define 1-2 roles/responsibilities 
a) 
b) 
2. What were the learning points from the Monetization workshop most relevant to your work in Title II 
activities? Briefly, list 1-2.
a) 
b) 
3. How useful did you find the Monetization Manual (MM) as a workshop tool? How useful is it as a 
practical, applied tool in your work in the field? Define 1-2 points for each.
a) 
b) 
4. What applications of workshop learning points have been most useful in improving your organization’s 
food aid/security program? Least useful? Define 1-2 examples for each. 
a) 
b) 
5. How has the workshop training and MM specifically influenced your organization’s management of your
food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 specific ways. 
a) 
b) 
6. How, if at all, has the workshop training and the application of the MM contributed to your organization’s
implementation of more targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways. 
a) 
b) 
7. What are some best practices that you derived from the workshop? Name and define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
8. To what extent did the workshop familiarize you with the FAM Food Security Resource Center (including
the website, Monetization listserv, hard copy documents, other)? Because of that, how frequently do you
use FSRC? Define 1-2 ways/How frequently.
a) 
b) 
9. Overall, how would you evaluate the workshop and the MM for their effectiveness and practicality in
supporting your Title II work? Briefly define. 
YOUR HELP AND COOPERATION ARE APPRECIATED. Regards, John Mason 
Annex 4, Page 11
Food Aid Management Cooperative Agreement Mid-Term Evaluation 
Questionnaire for 216 Regulation Training of Trainers Workshop Participants 
(Washington, D.C.—September 11-14, 2000)
This questionnaire is one of a series of instruments aimed at assessing the FAM Cooperative Agreement. Please 
reflect on the effectiveness of the Workshop specifically for its applications to your organization’s Title II program
activities. You have been randomly selected to participate in this brief survey. Your responses are confidential. 
Please respond to the extent practicable in the space provided, and return to me (John Mason, Mid-term Evaluation
Consultant) by email, Close of Business, TUESDAY 27 MARCH. Thank you very much for your cooperation. . 
1. What is your specific role and responsibility within your organization in applying the 216 Regulation?
Briefly define 1-2 roles/responsibilities 
a) 
b) 
2. Have you served as a trainer in giving the workshop to others? __Yes __No. 
a) If yes, how may times, to what participants, and with what success? b) If no, why not?
a) 
b) 
3. What were the learnings from the 216 Regulation workshop most relevant to your work in Title II 
activities? Briefly list 1-2.
a) 
b) 
4. How useful did you find the Environmental Documentation Manual (EDM) as a workshop tool? How
useful is it as a practical, applied tool in your work in the field? Define 1-2 points for each.
a) 
b) 
5. What applications of workshop learnings have been most useful in improving your organization’s food
aid/security program? Least useful? Define 1-2 examples for each. 
a) 
b) 
6. How has the workshop training and EDM specifically influenced your organization’s management of your
food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 specific ways. 
a) 
b) 
7. How, if at all, has the workshop training and the application of the EDM contributed to your organization’s 
implementation of more targeted, people-level food aid/security programs? Define 1-2 ways. 
a) 
b) 
8. What are some best practices that derive from the workshop? Name and define 1-2. 
a) 
b) 
9. To what extent did the workshop familiarize you with the FAM Food Security Resource Center (including
the website, DEVECOL database, hard copy documents, other)? Because of that, how frequently do you 
use FSRC? Define 1-2 ways/How frequently.
a) 
b) 
10. Overall, how would you evaluate the workshop and the EDM for their effectiveness and practicality in
supporting your Title II work? Briefly define in a few words. 
I APPRECIATE YOUR HELP AND COOPERATION. Regards, John Mason 
Annex 4, Page 12
FAM-FANta M&E Working Group Questionnaire (3/27/01—jpm) 
1. How long have you been associated with the FAM M&E Working Group? What has your role in that
Group been?
2. What particular FAM M&E tools and other products have you directly contributed to? What was your
contribution?
3. How has FAM-FANta specifically supported the M&E workshops delivered so far? What impact have
these had on member organizations M&E plans and their application to the actual monitoring of food
security?
4. How do you see these tools and products contributing to improved effectiveness of food aid/security as this
is achieved by FAM member field applications? In contributing to fulfillment of USAID/FFP 
requirements?
5. In what ways have the M&E tools and other products you’ve contributed to added to improved targeting of
food resources? Describe. 
6. How much improvement do you see in FAM members’ management of Title II programs because of 
enhanced M&E practices? Define and describe. 
7. To what degree have FAM-FANta-supported M&E toolkits been transferred to program staff in home
offices and among field staffs? What are some examples of effective transfer?
8. How useful have the indicators identified under FAM-supported M&E Working Group been in measuring 
progress of member organizations’ food aid/security programs?
9. How effective has the M&E Working Group functioned in defining and meeting its agenda? How satisfied 
have you been with the role you have played in the Working Group? Define. 
10. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the M&E Working Group from your perspective? What would 
you do to strengthen the Group and its products?
Annex 4, Page 13
Annex 5: Indicator Performance Tracking Table (Summary of some key FAM activities) 
Back to main document
FAM Goal: to promote the efficient and effective use of food aid resources to alleviate hunger and contribute to food security.
Modified December 2000 
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
*Targeted section 
of Monitoring and 
Evaluation 
completed.
FAM tracking of
autonomy
Satisfactory 
Completion of of Review 
Ag. submitted to 
Bio-physical 
Review
Final draft 
M&E 
Working 
Group
 Objective
met
Satisfactory 
Completion of 
Health and
Nutrition
component. 
*Autonomy:
HN Draft 
completed 
Re: Ag Bio￾physical 
toolkit: 
rejected by
group, to be 
completed FY 
01 
Submission of 
Annual Report
90% 
complete
d 
11/01 
Objective 
Delayed 
to FY01 
Objective 
met
(S/MED 
Component) 
*Target 
changed:
Monitoring 
Toolkit 
Ag Bio￾physical 
toolkit 
M&E Toolkit
completed 
Obj.
Expected 
To be 
Met 9/01 
Delayed 
To 12/01 
NRM - 
Safety
Net 
(Tbd) 
ETC. Completion of the M&E toolkit 
Annex 5, Page 1
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
*Targeted section 
of Monetization*
Working 
Group Manual/ 
Training Module 
completed or 
updated.
FAM tracking 
autonomy
Satisfactory 
Completion of
jointly
produced 
Monetiz. 
Manual 
Monetization 
Manual 
Completed and 
posted 
On FAM 
website 
Manual 
Finalized, 
Continued
development 
Of Training 
Module to
accompany 
manual 
Training module 
developed and 
field tested at
Joint - PVO 
monetization 
workshop. 
Annual updates 
to manual.
*Annual Report 
submitted 
T 
Training 
Module 
drafted and
field tested at
two 
workshops. 
Updates 
proposed 
Annual Report 
submitted 
Objective 
met
Objective 
Partially
Met 
Objective 
Achieved 
*Training 
Module & 
Training 
Curricula 
completed
*Manual 
chapters 1-3, 5 
translated to 
French &
Spanish, 
* FHI 
mentoring in
distance 
learning &
communicatio
n 
*Other issues￾based 
activities/meet
-ings (min. 4) 
Asia and Latin 
America 
Workshops 
*Group 
Autonomy
Drafts 
By
Africare, 
CRS 
Near 
Comple￾tion 
Objective 
Met 
Objective 
Met 
Tbd ETC. Satisfactory completion of
Monetization Manual, related
training modules, and workshops, 
Improved TII PVO skill base in
Monetization.
Annex 5, Page 2
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Annual increase in 
information 
requests 
(FSRC￾monitoring) 
FY98 Baseline: 
212 request
FY98 
Baseline 212 
Target = 233 
243 requests 
14.6% 
increase 
Target = 256 
146 requests 38% 
decrease
(poor 
data 
manage￾ment,
actual 
decrease
2
Minimum 
45% increase
recorded.3
Correct
tracking 
procedures
used. 
Objective 
on course 
to be met 
Objective 
met
Target = 
310 
ETC. 
FY03 
= 341 
Continued increase of 10% 
usage each year of the grant 
Total = 1422 
Members and others report FSRC 
provided them with the information 
they require. Measurement based on 
survey taken at time of use. 
2 The Technical Information Specialist position at FAM was vacant during the entire year, meaning there was a fall off in marketing activities, and thus possibly requests. However, it also meant that data were not
tracked appropriately, and some data was lost (see FSRC report). However, there was also indication that use of on-line documents posted to the FAM website increased, so this may have reduced FSRC usage to
some extent. 
3 This increase will allow achievement of the targeted 10% annual increase, making up the difference from the FY00 decrease. 
Annex 5, Page 3
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Annual increase in 
Field staff requests 
FY98 
Baseline 17% 
Target = 21% 
At least 26% 
Of requests 
From field 
5% over
target
19-25% increase 
from the 
previous year (-
average target set 
at 20%
increase)= 25% 
23% of 
requests from 
field 
2% under
target
(poor 
data 
manage￾ment, so 
this may 
have 
been 
higher) 
Target
30% 
field usage 
Objective 
on course 
to be met 
Target
36% field
ETC. 
FY03 
43% 
Continued increase of approx 20% 
each year in requests from the field 
(from the previous year) 
To total 43% at the end of the grant. 
Field staff report FSRC provides 
information they require. 
Measurement based on survey taken 
at time of use. 
Annex 5, Page 4
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Expansion of FAM 
website4
January 1999
Avg. # number of
hits per day = 62
# of hits on 
website/broken 
down by
webpage 
reported on a 
quarterly basis.
5% increase per
quarter of staff 
using site to
improve quality
of food security
programs. 
improvements to
website based on
actual use/needs
# hits on
website/broke
n down by
quarter 
No data on 
purpose of use 
(web-based 
survey during
FY01) 
Net increase of Obj.
use in FY 00: 
20%???
Website 
redesign in FY 
01 
Obj.
Achiev’d 
Info not 
available 
Achiev’d 
Post￾poned to
FY 01 
# hits on
website/broke
n down by
month 
webpage 
reported
quarterly
5% increase
per quarter of 
staff using site
Site-based
survey
developed to
assess purpose
of site use 
Min. 30% use 
by staff to 
improve food 
security
programs 
Website 
redesign 
Objective 
met
Objective 
exceeded 
Objective 
met
Insuffi￾cient data
available to 
date to 
determine5
Objective 
met
ETC. Average number of hits/day
increases by 5% per quarter. 
70% of PVO users consult the 
website to obtain information to
improve food security programs. 
85% of these users access the
information they are looking for.
Portions of website not used are 
deleted, while portions of website 
used are improved so as to meet user 
requirements. 
Measurement based on information 
from WebTracker, and periodic user 
surveys posted to site. 
4 FAM has a mentoring agreement with Food for the Hungry International. FHI generated a report on FAM website usage in January 1999, and is doing so again in January 2000. In FY2000 software will be
purchased that will enable FAM staff to monitor these trends more carefully and frequently. 
5 Website survey was posted in March 2001, and to date, responses have been insufficient to determine this. 
Annex 5, Page 5
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Two FAM 
workshops 
organized per/year6
Two 
Successful 
workshops/ 
year with
strong 
evaluations
A total of 37 ISA 
funded workshops 
developed and 
Managed by FAM 
Objective 
Met 
Local Capacity
Building 
And 
Workshop TBA 
1) Central & 
Southern 
Africa Moneti￾ation
Workshop 
(Johannesburg
) 
2) LCB 
Annual 
Meeting
Workshop 
3) EWG Reg. 
216 Training 
of Trainers 
held: 
Obj.
Achiev’d 
1) Monitoring
and 
Evaluation 
Data Analysis 
Workshop 
(Nov. 2000) 
2) Asia 
Monetization
Workshop 
(Oct. 2000) 
3) Latin
America 
Monetization 
Workshop 
(Jan. 2001)
Objective 
met
Objective 
Met 
Objective 
met
Local 
Capacity
Building 
and/or 
Monitoring 
and Eval. 
ETC. 
FY 
2003 
Monet. 
At least 10 successful workshops 
through LOA. 
These will include 
1 on Monetization (year 5); 
2 M&E; 1 Commodity Management. 
1 LCB 
6 To improve follow-up after workshops, and to better determine the effect of the workshops upon the quality Title II programs, FAM staff and Working Group chairs are working together to develop feasible 
mechanisms to capture feedback related to the working groups. These feedback mechanisms are intended to improve monitoring of the impact and usefulness of FAM workshops, and documents developed by the 
working groups. 
7 ISA funds supported the November 1998 FAM annual meeting that included a monetization workshop section. In December 1999, FAM with the EWG hosted a “Lessons Learned and Planning” workshop. The 
M&E working group with the FANTA project developed the May 1999 Sampling for Manager’s workshop. With funding from the SUSTAIN project, and collaboration with staff from USAID’s Global Bureau, 
Bureau of Humanitarian Response, the FANta project, the Congressional Hunger Center, and the Micronutrient Initiative of Canada, FAM staff organized the Enhancing the Nutritional Quality of Relief Diets 
workshop, which took place in April 1999. 
Annex 5, Page 6
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Specific element
targeted for LCB 
working group 
achieved/year. 
Tracking of
autonomy
LCB Background 
paper prepared for 
FAM Members, as
preparation for 
FAM Annual Mtg. 
Paper 
completed
satisfactorily,
Objective 
met.
Working plan for 
working group 
finalized
and LCB 
Publication 
Outlined and
drafted.
Annual report 
submitted by
WG chair. 
Group functions
Autonomously
Work plan 
completed 
Publication 
postponed 
Annual report 
submitted 
Group 
functions 
Autonomously
Obj.
Achiev’d 
Post￾poned 
Obj.
Achiev’d 
Obj.
Achiev’d 
LCB Paper on 
Measurement 
of Capacity
Building 
completed.
50% 
due to be 
completed
in FY01 
LCB Mea￾surement 
Module 
completed
Tbd ETC. Completion of LCB Manual. 
Annex 5, Page 7
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Specific element
targeted for 
EWG achieved/ 
year. (Starting with 
FY00) 
tracking of
autonomy
No target set FY1999 
EWG work-plan 
outlined and 
implemented 
by members of the
WG.
CS 
workshops 
developed 
and hosted by
members of 
the working
group, 
Training 
modules 
drafted.
FY00 Workplan 
Finalized. 
-draft training 
modules 
submitted. 
FY01 workplan 
outlined. 
Annual report 
submitted by
WG chairs. 
Workplan 
finalized 
Reg 216 
Training of
Trainers 
conducted 
Product 
delivery late
Obj.
Achiev’d 
Activity 
fulfilled 
objective 
Obj.
Post￾poned 
*Conduct 4
workshops on 
Reg. 216 and
other 
Environmental 
topics 
*Development 
of regional 
training cadre 
*Annual 
report 
submitted by
WG chair. 
3 conducted
to date 
75% to date
Objective 
Met 
ETC. Improved integration of Reg. 216 
environmental principles into TII
programming. (Through CS led 
workshops, training module 
development.) 
Annex 5, Page 8
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
No fewer than 5 
Food Aid/Food 
Security
Discussions 
Per year 
Five meetings --RNIS, 
--CRG, 
--FFP ER 
Meeting, 
--CRS led PVO 
meeting A-133, 
--World Vision 
Food Aid 
Managers 
Objective met Five meetings -Center for 
Sustainable 
Agriculture
--CHC, 
--FFP ER mtg 
--4 EWG 
Brownbags 
--6 LCB 
Brownbags 
--3 
Monetization
Issues
meetings 
--3 
FAM/FANTA
/TAG topical 
meetings 
--SUSTAIN: 
MAP,
preliminary 
CRG present. 
--Dried Bean 
Council 
--DEVECOL 
Total = 22 
meetings held 
440% *New target:
fifteen 
meetings8
--2 LCB 
Brownbags
--2 EWG 
Brownbags
--1 USDA 
TQSA
meeting 
--1 FAM/ 
FANTA 
Tag 
Meeting 
--1 
SUSTAIN￾Presentatio
n on web￾based CRG 
& MAP 
53% of 
revised 
target
reached to 
date 
Five 
meetings 
ETC. Majority of participants increase
their knowledge/understanding of
topical issues that enable them to
plan & collaborate on food security
initiatives. 
No fewer than 25 food aid/food
security meetings held over the
LOA.
Annex 5, Page 9
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Annual Meeting
Specific objective 
for each annual 
meeting met, per 
year. 
Overall objective
will be increased
collaboration, 
measured (as part
of mid-term & 
final evaluations) 
as an index of the 
following: 
-Increase in
number & 
effectiveness of 
partnership
relationships & 
joint program 
initiatives 
- Increase in 
number & 
effectiveness of 
mentorship 
relationships 
- Increased sharing 
of resources 
- Increase in the
number of jointly
developed tools & 
methods 
All FAM 
working 
groups 
present annual 
progress 
reports. 
All working groups 
presented reports. 
Strong qualitative 
evaluation at end 
of meeting.
Objective met All FAM 
working groups 
present Annual 
Progress reports 
at meeting.
All working 
groups 
presented
annual 
progress 
reports at 
annual 
working group 
meetings 
Objective 
Achieved 
All FAM 
working 
groups present 
Annual 
Progress 
reports at 
meeting. 
All FAM
working 
groups 
present 
annual 
progress 
reports at 
meeting. 
ETC. As a result of attending annual 
meetings, collaboration improves 
among FAM members as evidenced 
by:
- Increase in number & 
effectiveness of 
partnership relationships 
& joint program initiatives 
- Increase in number & 
effectiveness of 
mentorship relationships 
- Increased sharing of 
resources 
- Increase in the number of 
jointly developed tools & 
methods for use by
membership
An index measurement of these 
indicators is to be provided within 
the midterm and final evaluations. 
Annex 5, Page 10
INDICATOR FY99 
TARGET
FY99 
ACHIEVED
FY99 
ACHIEVED 
VS TARGET
FY00 
TARGET 
FY00 
ACHV’D 
FY00% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET 
FY01 
TARGET 
FY01 
ACHV’D 
FY01% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
FY02 
TARGET
FY02 
ACHV’D 
FY02% 
ACHV’D 
VS 
TARGET
ETC. LOA 
TARGET 
LOA 
ACHVD
Mentoring 
partnership with
FHI indicators met 
FAM 
Website 
managed 
FAM staff 
FAM website 
Managed 
internally
Objective 
Met 
FAM listserv 
managed by
FAM staff and 
usage increased 
Listserv 
managed by
FAM staff 
No data on 
usage of
listservs, 
however use 
of EWG 
listserv 
becomes insti￾tutionalized 
Obj.
Achieved 
No data, 
but 
appears
to have
increased 
Mentoring 
Monetization
working group 
(and others as 
requested) on 
development 
of distance 
learning 
options 
ETC. FAM staff manage and improve 
website independently.
Annex 5, Page 11
Annex 6: FAM Collaborative Training Activities 
Back to main document
FAM Collaborative Training Activities 
Institutional Support Assistance Grant: October 1998 – June 2001 
FY 1999: Year 1 
Title Dates Location Working Group Hosting
Organization(s) 
# of Org’s; 
Participants 
Countries 
Represented 
Sampling for 
Managers 
5/24-26/99 Westminster,
MD 
M&E FAM Data not
Available 
Headquarters and Field 
Monetization:
West & Central Africa
7/12-15/99 Accra, Ghana Monetization Africare, 
ACDI-VOCA 
9 Org’s 
27 P’pants 
Cape Verde, USA, Uganda, 
Ghana, Guinea, Chad, Mali, 
Burkina Faso, Liberia, The 
Gambia, Ethiopia, W. Afr. 
Reg. 
FY 2000: Year 2 
Title Dates Location Working Group Hosting
Organization(s) 
# of Org’s; 
Participants 
Countries 
Represented 
Monetization:
East & Southern 
Africa
11/2-5/99 Johannesburg,
South Africa 
Monetization SCF, ACDI-VOCA,
World Vision, CARE 
9 Org’s 
28 P’pants 
South Africa, USA, Ghana,
Madagascar, Mozambique,
Togo, Kenya, Malawi, 
Ethiopia, Angola, Uganda, 
Zimbabwe 
Local Capacity 
Building 
11/8-10/99 Philadelphia, PA LCB FAM, Africare, ACDI￾VOCA 16 Org’s 32 P’pants For Headquarters Staff 
Annex 6, Page 1
Regulation 216 
Training of Trainers 
Workshop
9/10-14/00 Washington, DC EWG USAID, FAM-EWG,
Counterpart 
International 
13 Org’s 
27 P’pants 
Mozambique, Honduras, 
Ethiopia, Angola, Guinea, 
Guatmala, Rwanda, Sierra 
Leone, Bangladesh, 
Madagascar, India, Mid 
East/E. Eur. Reg, Kenya, 
Burundi, Ghana, Niger, 
Haiti 
FY 2001: Year 3 
Title Dates Location Working Group Hosting
Organization(s) 
# of Org’s; 
Participants 
Countries 
Represented 
Monetization:
Asia 
10/3-6/00 Dehli, India Monetization CARE 10 Org’s
~ 30 
P’pants 
India, Bangladesh, USA, 
Indonesia, Pakistan, 
Kosovo 
Data Analysis 11/6-10/00 Nairobi, 
Kenya 
M&E FAM, ADRA 12 Org’s 
26 P’pants 
Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, 
USA, Madagascar, So. 
Sudan, Uganda, The 
Gambia, Sudan, 
Mozambique, E. Afr. Reg. 
Monetization:
Latin America and 
Caribbean 
1/28-2/3/01 Lima Peru Monetization CRS 14 Org’s
47 P’pants 
Haiti, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, 
Bolivia, Guinea, USA 
Annex 6, Page 2
Annex 7: FAM Members Contribution to Food Forum
Back to main document
*Note that in FY99, IRD and Counterpart Int'l were not yet members. Food Forum was publishing bi-monthly in FY99. 
FY99 Issue
44 
FY99 Issue 
45 
FY99 Issue 
46 
FY99 Issue 47 FY99 Issue 48 FY99 Issue 49 FY99 Issue 50 Total 
ADRA X 1 
Africare X 1 
ACDI-VOCA X 1 
American Red Cross X 1 
CARE X X 2 
CRS X 1 
Feed the Children 0 
FHI X 1 
Mercy Corps 0 
OIC International 0 
PCI X 1 
Save the Children X 1 
TechnoServe X 1 
World SHARE 0 
World Vision X X 2 
*Note that for most of FY00, IRD was not yet a member. Food Forum published quarterly from FY00 on. 
FY00 Issue
51 
FY00 Issue 
52 
FY00 Issue 
53 
FY00 Issue 54 Total 
ADRA X 1 
Africare X 1 
ACDI-VOCA 0 
American Red 
Cross 
X 1 
CARE X X 2 
CRS X 1 
Counterpart Int'l 0 
Feed the Children 0 
Annex 7, Page 1
FHI 0 
Mercy Corps 0 
OIC International X 1 
PCI 0 
Save the Children X 1 
TechnoServe 0 
World SHARE 0 
World Vision X 1 
Totals are estimated for FY01. 
FY01 Issue
55 
FY01 Issue 
56 
FY01 Issue 
57 
FY01 Issue 58 Total (est.) 
ADRA sched. 1 
Africare 0 
ACDI-VOCA sched. 1 
American Red 
Cross 
sched. 1 
CARE 0 
CRS 0 
Counterpart Int'l X 1 
Feed the Children 0 
FHI X sched. 1 
IRD 0 
Mercy Corps 0 
OIC International sched. 1 
PCI X 1 
Save the Children sched. 1 
TechnoServe X 1 
World SHARE 0 
World Vision 0 
Annex 7, Page 2
Annex 8, Page 1
Annex 8: Documents Produced by FAM under its ISA 
Back to main document
Documents Produced by FAM in Fiscal Years 1999 - 2001 
With Funding from ISA Award # FAO-A-00-98-00081-00 
FY2001 (thus far, October 1, 2000 – May 31, 2001) 
Proceedings of the Latin American Regional Monetization Workshop (Hosted by CRS) 
January 28 – February 2, 2001, Lima, Peru 
Proceedings of the FAM/FANTA Data Analysis Workshop (Hosted by ADRA Kenya) 
November 6 – 10, 2000, Nairobi, Kenya 
- Materials from the FAM/FANTA Data Analysis Workshop (same as above) 
Proceedings of the Asia Regional Monetization Workshop (Hosted by CARE India) 
October 3 – 6, 2000, Delhi, India. Forthcoming.
FY2000 (October 1, 1999 – September 30, 2000) 
Food Aid Lexicon – Second Edition
Food Aid Management. 2000. 
Review of Health and Nutrition Project Baseline Research Methods of Title II Funded PVOs
Haggerty, Patricia; FAM Monitoring & Evaluation Working Group. September 2000. 
Proceedings of the Regulation 216 Training of Trainers Workshop (Hosted by Counterpart International) 
September 11 – 16, 2000. Washington, DC. USA. 
- Materials from Regulation 216 Training of Trainers Workshop (same as above) 
A Cooperating Sponsor’s Field Guide to USAID Environmental Compliance Procedures. 
Burpee, Gaye; Harrigan, Paige; Remington, Tom; Catholic Relief Services; FAM Environmental Working Group. 
February 2000. 
Proceedings of the Local Capacity Building Workshop (Hosted by FAM) 
November 9-10, 1999. Philadelphia, PA. USA. 
Proceedings of the East and Southern Africa Monetization Workshop (Hosted by Save the Children, ACDI-VOCA, 
World Vision, and CARE) 
November 2- 5, 1999. Johannesburg, South Africa. 
Monetization Manual: A Guide for Title II Cooperating Sponsors
Ralyea, Bridget; FAM Monetization Working Group. November 1999. 
FY1999 (October 1, 1998 – September 30, 1999) 
Proceedings of the West and Central Africa Monetization Workshop (Hosted by Africare and ACDI-VOCA) 
July 12-15, 1999. Accra, Ghana. 
Proceedings of the Sampling for Managers Workshop (Hosted by FAM) 
May 24-26, 1999. Westminster, MD. USA. 
- Materials from the Sampling for Managers Workshop. (same as above) 
Proceedings of the Enhancing the Nutritional Quality of Relief Diets Workshop (Hosted by American Red Cross) 
April 1999. Arlington, Virginia. USA. 
Environmental Documentation Manual (EDM), Second Edition 
Bingham, Charlotte; Fisher, Wes; Knausenberger, Walter; USAID; FAM Environmental Working Group. 
February 1999. 
Annex 9, Page 1
Annex 9: Working Group Participants 
Back to main document
FAM Environmental Working Group (EWG) 
Institutional Support Assistance Grant: October 1998 – June 2001 
FY 1999-Year 1 
Participants Organization Represented 
Paige Harrigan, Chair FAM 
Tom Gardiner / Thomas Gibb ACDI/VOCA 
Mario Pareja / Scott Solberg CARE 
Ben Campbell / Carol Horst World Vision 
Amy Volz TechnoServe 
Dave Ameyaw / Nestor Mogollon ADRA 
Gaye Burpee / Tom Remington Catholic Relief Services 
Thoric Cederstrom / Rachel Bird Save the Children 
Harold Tarver Africare 
David Prettyman Project Concern International 
Carla Denizard OIC International 
Barry Elkin Mendez England 
Laurie de la Riva Food for the Hungry 
Charlotte Bingham REDSO 
Joe Gettier FFP 
Walter Knausenberger USAID-Africa Bureau 
Paul des Rosiers USAID/BHR 
FY 2000-Year 2 
Participants Organization Represented 
Ben Campbell, Co-Chair World Vision 
Amy Volz, Co-Chair TechnoServe 
Mario Pareja CARE 
Gaye Burpee Catholic Relief Services 
Ann Flagg Catholic Relief Services 
Tom Gardiner ACDI/VOCA 
Charles Owubah World Vision 
Ange Tingbo Africare 
Ellen Wertheimer OIC International 
Aaron Becker Counterpart International 
Barry Elkin Mendez England 
Thoric Cederstrom Save the Children 
Wes Fisher Tellus Institute 
Brian Hirsch USAID/AFR/SD 
Walter Knausenberger USAID-Africa Bureau 
Paul des Rosiers USAID/BHR 
Paige Harrigan FAM 
Mara Russell FAM 
Annex 9, Page 2
Trish Schmirler FAM 
Steve Zodrow FAM 
FY 2001-Year 3 
Participants Organization Represented 
Ben Campbell, Co-Chair World Vision 
Barry Elkin, Co-Chair ACDI/VOCA 
Mario Pareja CARE 
Claud Nankam World Vision 
Ange Tingbo Africare 
Gaye Burpee Catholic Relief Services 
Irene Abdou Counterpart International 
Thoric Cederstrom Save the Children 
Patricia Forner World Vision 
Peter Freeman DEVECOL 
Wes Fisher Tellus Institute 
Emily Goldman Counterpart International 
Brian Hirsch USAID/AFR/SD 
Paul des Rosiers USAID/BHR 
Mara Russell FAM 
Trish Schmirler FAM 
Steve Zodrow FAM 
Annex 9, Page 3
FAM Local Capacity Building Working Group (LCB WG) 
Institutional Support Assistance Grant: October 1998 – June 2001 
FY 1999-Year 1 
Participants Organization Represented 
Paige Harrigan, Acting Chair FAM 
Carol Horst / Kate Robins World Vision 
Judy Bryson Africare 
Susan Bornstein / Milena Baptista TechnoServe 
Meg Kinghorn Catholic Relief Services 
Thoric Cederstrom Save the Children 
Rene Berger FFP 
Gilles Bergeron FANTA 
David Prettyman Project Concern International 
Jeanne Downen CARE 
Reginald Hodges OIC International 
Elisa Sabatini / Don Lam WorldSHARE 
Margaret Stansberry American Red Cross 
Ross Jaax ACDI/VOCA 
FY 2000-Year 2 
Participants Organization Represented 
Meg Kinghorn, Chair Catholic Relief Services 
Luke Greeves American Red Cross 
Jonathan Evans Catholic Relief Services 
Jen Miller ACDI/VOCA 
Irene Abdou Counterpart International 
Margaret Schuler World Vision 
Alice Willard FANTA 
Gary Brendal ADRA 
Jeanne Downen CARE 
Harold Tarver Africare 
Tilahun Giday OIC International 
Thoric Cederstrom Save the Children 
Christina Gagliardi Project Concern International 
Joe Stuckey CARE 
Judy Bryson Africare 
Paige Harrigan FAM 
Jessica Graef FAM 
Trish Schmirler FAM 
Mara Russell FAM 
Steve Zodrow FAM 
Annex 9, Page 4
FY 2001-Year 3 
Participants Organization Represented 
Irene Abdou, Chair Counterpart International 
Peter Truscott, Chair ADRA 
Anuradha Harinarayan Save the Children 
Joe Stuckey CARE 
Luke Greeves American Red Cross 
Alice Willard FANTA 
Victor Pinga OIC International 
Jana Prins Counterpart International 
Adrian Ng’asi ACDI/VOCA 
Judy Bryson Africare 
Gary Brendal ADRA 
Meg Kinghorn Catholic Relief Services 
Mara Russell FAM 
Trish Schmirler FAM 
Steve Zodrow FAM 
Annex 9, Page 5
FAM Monitoring and Evaluation Working Group (M&E WG) 
Institutional Support Assistance Grant: October 1998 – June 2001 
FY 1999-Year 1 
Participants Organization Represented 
Dave Evans, Chair Food for the Hungry 
Dorothy Scheffel World Vision 
Antoinette Brown Catholic Relief Services 
Judy Bryson Africare 
Ross Jaax ACDI/VOCA 
Colette Powers ACDI/VOCA 
Gaye Burpee Catholic Relief Services 
Harold Tarver Africare 
Gilles Bergeron FANTA 
TJ Ryan FAM 
Paige Harrigan FAM 
FY 2000-Year 2 
Participants Organization Represented 
Dorothy Scheffel, Chair World Vision 
Antoinette Brown Catholic Relief Services 
Dave Evans Food for the Hungry 
Adrian Ng’asi ACDI/VOCA 
Judy Bryson Africare 
Margaret Stansberry American Red Cross 
Fred McCray Catholic Relief Services 
Gaye Burpee Catholic Relief Services 
Carol Puzone American Red Cross 
Amy Volz TechnoServe 
Dave Ameyaw ADRA 
Jen Miller ACDI-VOCA 
Kate Robins World Vision 
Harold Tarver Africare 
Thoric Cederstrom Save the Children 
Anne Swindale FANTA 
Barbara Reed FANTA 
Alice Willard FANTA 
Paige Harrigan FAM 
Mara Russell FAM 
Trish Schmirler FAM 
Steve Zodrow FAM 
Annex 9, Page 6
FY 2001-Year 3 
Participants Organization Represented 
Dave Ameyaw, Chair ADRA 
Dave Evans Food for the Hungry 
Keith Wright Food for the Hungry 
Dorothy Scheffel World Vision 
Harold Tarver Africare 
Judy Bryson Africare 
Carol Puzone American Red Cross 
Irene Abdou Counterpart International 
Jana Prins Counterpart International 
Jim Rugh CARE 
Natalie Rarick CARE 
Anne Swindale FANTA 
Alice Willard FANTA 
Mara Russell FAM 
Trish Schmirler FAM 
Steve Zodrow FAM 
Annex 9, Page 7
FAM Monetization Working Group ( WG) 
Institutional Support Assistance Grant: October 1998 – June 2001 
FY 1999-Year 1 
Participants Organization Represented 
Milena Baptista TechnServe 
Carla Denizard OIC International 
Ron Howard OIC International 
Bob Bell CARE 
Mark Smith Africare 
Lee Thompson Africare 
Juli Majernik Catholic Relief Services 
Rudy Monsalve ADRA 
Carl Foreman Catholic Relief Services 
Lauren Landis Save the Children 
Ted Okada Food for the Hungry 
Chris Bessenecker Project Concern International 
Ron Shaw Save the Children 
Carol Horst World Vision 
Leslie Peterson World Vision 
Jessica Graef FAM 
TJ Ryan FAM 
FY 2000-Year 2 
Participants Organization Represented 
Lee Thompson-Chair Africare 
Carla Denizard OIC International 
Juli Majernik Catholic Relief Services 
Chris Bessenecker Project Concern International 
Mohammed Adeeb CARE 
Rudy Monsalve ADRA 
Bob Bell CARE 
Carol Jenkins World Vision 
Lauren Landis Save the Children 
Sabinus Anaele Technoserve 
Paige Harrigan FAM 
Mara Russell FAM 
Annex 9, Page 8
FY 2001-Year 3 
Participants Organization Represented 
Lee Thompson-CO-Chair Africare 
Juli Majernik- CO-Chair Catholic Relief Services 
Gail Carlson Counterpart International 
Sabinus Anaele Technoserve 
Rudy Monsalve ADRA 
Michelle Hecker ACDI/VOCA 
Mohammed Adeeb CARE 
Carla Denizard OIC International 
Keith Wright Food for the Hungry 
Bob Bell CARE 
Lauren Landis Save the Children 
Carol Jenkins World Vision 
Rachel Grant World Vision 
Mara Russell FAM 
Annex 10, Page 1
Annex 10: Evaluation of FAM Website and FAM/FHI Mentoring Agreement 
Back to main document
This document was provided by Phil Moses, ISA Mid-Term Consultant to Food for the Hungry 
International (FHI).
FAM Mentorship. 
Under the ISA, FAM and FHI agreed to pursue a mentoring partnership to improve the 
information technology capabilities of FAM. FHI serves in the role of mentor and FAM in the 
role of mentored. For all components of the mentorship the objectives have been achieved 
in that FHI and FAM are moving past the original activities to include new ones. Comments 
from FAM staff and members as well as data on usership of FAM’s website and on the 
membership of FAM’s listservs demonstrate that FHI’s mentorship with FAM has helped to 
bring about the anticipated effects of the mentorship i.e. improved and increased 
communication and information flow among the FAM consortium members. 
The mentorship has resulted in improved knowledge, skills and practices on the part of FAM 
staff. FHI staffers trained the Technical Information Specialist on how to manage FAM’s 
website. When this TIS left FAM she was able to pass on much of the skills and knowledge 
she had learned from FHI staff to her successor. FHI's input was very sustainable in that it 
was easily transferred from one person to the other. FAM’s website and listservs have seen 
a dramatic increase in usership since the beginning of the mentorship with FHI. This is due 
to a number of factors, many of which are independent of FHI’s help. However, it is clear that 
the help FHI staff members Dave Evans, Keith Wright, and Ted Okada have offered has 
played a pivotal role in the expansive use of these services by FAM members and others. 
See the graph below for a monthly breakdown of visitors to the website.i
Annex 10, Page 2
In February 1999 the site had 254 visitors. In February 2001 the site had about 1,713 visits 
representing an increase of over 500% in two years. This past March 2001 saw almost 
2000 visitors to the website. This represents a very large increase in the raw number of 
visits as well as the number of different users. Of the recognizable organizations who are 
FAM members or affiliates (such as USAID or AED), the ones who visited the site most often 
in 20009
 (in no particular order) are: CARE, Catholic Relief Services, USAID, CARE Kenya, 
USDA, Counterpart International, FAO, American Red Cross, American Red Cross 
Macedonia, ADRA, World Vision, World Vision Canada, and AED. 
Since FAM’s site is much smaller than USAID’s site, and FAM offers a number of links to 
pages on the USAID site, FAM staff think USAID staff are using FAM’s website to find things 
on their own website more quickly. There has been an increase in the number of visits from 
field staff over the last few months. 
Staff reports a large increase in listserv membership. FAM working group members are the primary users of list serves. A 
number of users are people who aren't on the list serves but want to stay in touch. People have used it for technical 
assistance.
FAM Listserv membership breakdown as of April 2001 
Working Group Total subscribers Total FAM 
members 
Total Non-FAM 
members 
Total FAM 
member field staff 
(estimated) 
Commodity 
Management 
 18 15 3 3 
Environmental 43 33 10 5 
Local 
Capacity 
Building 
44 34 10 8 
Monitoring 
and 
Evaluation 
67 49 18 15 
Monetization 50 42 8 16 
Grand Total 222 173 49 47 
Listserv members are asking for and receiving technical assistance over the listserv. (See Call Forward: A Listserv for 
Technical Support? by Mario Pareja, Technical Advisor to CARE in Food Forum, Issue 52, 2nd Quarter 2000, available at 
http://www.foodaid.org/foodforum.htm.) 
After FHI staff helped to review Chat room technology, FAM staff have decided that the Chat 
technology currently available does not lend itself to the needs of the membership. 
(Originally it was hoped to conduct working group meetings via internet chat, but this is not 
feasible at the moment). 
Some of the areas in which FAM would like to get more help from FHI in the out years and 
possibly beyond are: continuing to host the website and to help make innovations, help in 
making the library available online, help in extending interactive web-based learning, help 
with any sort of new technology for voice chat. 
 
i
Emerging Trends in Usage of the FAM Web Site: Addendum to the 2000 Web Site Report April 2001.