FINAL REPORT
EVALUATION OF THE SYNERGOS INSTITUTE PROGRAM:
“Enhancing the Resource Base for Development in Brazil, Mexico 
and Mozambique”
Co-financed by USAID Office of Private Voluntary Co-operation
Grant # HFP-A-00-02-00015-00
John Saxby, Consultant
Pretoria, South Africa
December 2005
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Author’s Note of Thanks
List of Acronyms
Evaluation Profile Sheet
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations i
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Program Background 1
3.0 Program Effectiveness: 4
3.1 Program Approach 4
3.2 Common Issues within the Program 5
3.3 The Mozambique Program 11
3.4 The Mexico Program 25
3.5 The Brazil Program 41
3.6 The Headquarters Program, and Notes on Program Management 55
3.7 Cross-Cutting Issues: 62
Sustainability
New Tools and Approaches
Partnership
4.0 Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Programming and Management 66
5.0 Conclusions 70
ANNEXES:
Ann. I: Note on Method, including references
Ann. II: Table A: Program Strengths and Weaknesses (by program)
Ann. III: Table B: Progress against DIP Results
Ann. IV: Table C: Partnerships
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico
AUTHOR’S NOTE of THANKS
Evaluators require the help of a lot of people to do their work. That work requires the 
people and organizations involved to adjust their daily routine to accommodate the
schedule and logistical requirements of the evaluator, as well as engaging with the
substance of the evaluation and the inevitable followup on detail. This evaluation was no 
exception—indeed was more complicated than many, with its focus on programs in
Mozambique, Mexico and Brazil which included dozens of organizations, as well as
multiple funders, of which the largest was USAID. Over the space of nearly four months, 
I spoke with dozens of people in four countries, some of them several times. Their names 
are listed in the annexed Note on Method. Because so many people were involved in this 
project in diverse ways, I have not singled out individuals in this note. My work has been 
greatly facilitated by the welcome and support given to me by Synergos staff and by
Synergos’ partner organizations in all three countries, as well as by Synergos staff in the 
Institute’s head office in New York City. The responsible officer of the USAID Office of 
Private Voluntary Co-operation was also very helpful with his observations about the
program, and with advice on the organization of the Report. Everyone I spoke to thought 
carefully about the issues in their co-operation over the years, and gave generously of
their time and energy to pass on their analyses, conclusions and suggestions. My task has 
been to synthesize and assess a wealth of information and insight, and to play back the 
resulting commentary, conclusions and recommendations to the participants and
supporters of the program. This task has been challenging but always hugely interesting, 
and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to do it. It follows that any errors of
judgment or misrepresentation in this Report are mine. Nevertheless, I hope both
participants and supporters find the Report useful for their work now and in the future.
John Saxby
Pretoria, South Africa
December 15, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADC Association for Community Development (Mozambique)
BPP Border Partnership Program (Mexico & U.S.)
CBO community-based organization
CDRA Community Development Resource Association (South 
Africa)
CTA Confederation of Economic Associations of Mozambique
CEMEFI Mexican Centre for Philanthropy
CF(s) community foundation(s)
CFG Community Foundations Group (Mexico)
DAC Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD)
DIP Detailed Implementation Plan
ECDPM European Centre for Development Policy Management 
(Netherlands)
EOP End of Project
FIRJAN Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
FDC Foundation for Community Development (Mozambique)
GIFE Group of Institutes, Foundations and Enterprises (Brazil)
HQ headquarters
IAF Inter-American Foundation
MG Matching Grant
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO non-government organization
OD organizational development
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PVC Office of Private Voluntary Co-operation (USAID)
PVO private voluntary organization
SAGA Southern Africa Grantmakers’ Association
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WINGS Worldwide Initiative for Grantmaker Support (USA)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico
EVALUATION PROFILE SHEET:
PVO Name: The Synergos Institute,
9 East 69th St.,
New York, NY 10021
Co-operative Agreement Number: HFP-A-00-02-00015-00
Country Program Sites: Mozambique; Mexico; Brazil
Names of Principal Partners:
Mozambique: Fundação para Desenvolvimento da Comunidade (FDC)
Mexico: CEMEFI – Centro Mexicano para Filantrópia; Community 
Foundations Group (CFG)
Brazil: Grupo de Institutos, Fundações, e Empresas (GIFE); Instituto 
Rio; Fundação Abrinq
Duration of Grant: June 2002 – Sept. 2005, with extension for final expenditures to
Dec. 31, 2005
Beneficiary Populations: 
Direct: Staff of partner organizations: mainly young to mid-career adults,
approximately 300 in total. Gender ratio: not known—estimated at 50/50.
Indirect: Members of vulnerable communities served by partner organizations
and their networks. Social profiles not constructed during this evaluation.
Matching Grant Totals:
USAID: US$ 1,499,891
Synergos match: US$ 1,499,891 Total: $2,999,782
Funds Disbursed to Nov 30, 2005: 
USAID funds: $1,499,891
Synergos match: $1,327,501
Total: $2,827,392
Date DIP approved by PVC: March 2004; revised DIP submitted in July 2003.
Evaluation Start Date: Aug. 6, 2005 End Date: Jan. 24, 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico: i
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) Common Issues within the Program:
Framing the program: the primacy of context
The program planning documents underplay the wider socio-political and institutional
contexts and their influence on capacity issues facing foundations in Mozambique,
Mexico or Brazil, or their implications for Synergos’ capacity development strategies. 
The goals and objectives for each country are similar, so that the program appears
generic, rather than crafted to respond to the challenges of philanthropy in the three
countries. Respondents in all programs emphasized the specifics of the environments in
which they worked, marked not by homogeneity but by complexity, diversity and
dynamism. The programming challenge has been to adapt to the special circumstances of
time and place, people and organizations.
Synergos’ work with intermediary organizations poses a key question for the Institute and 
its counterparts: what conditions need to be in place if a partnership is to work well? 
Synergos and its counterparts have built on existing relationships which offered
familiarity and trust. In retrospect, both sides should have scrutinized more thoroughly
their institutional readiness for the program.
Synergos and its partner organizations prepared for the program by studying the
philanthropic environment in each country. It is recommended that future programs
build on this practice, factoring into their rationale an analysis of the national,
institutional and operational contexts so as to create a sharper setting for the program
strategy and objectives. (Text, p. 7)
Framing the program: acknowledging partners’ roles
A forthright examination of the main partners’ expected roles in the program, especially
those of Synergos, would complement the analysis of the institutional context of the
program. There seem to have been mismatched expectations and/or a lack of clarity
about roles within some of the key organizational relationships in the program. A
deliberate negotiation and a benchmarking statement of roles at the outset might have
anticipated some of these difficulties.
Synergos’ multiple roles within the program—fundraiser, interlocutor with USAID and 
manager of donor funds; program partner to Southern organizations; networker and
organizer of technical assistance—do not fit easily together. Their aggregate weight may
also have unbalanced some of the program partnerships.
Achievements beyond the plan: leveraging new resources
Synergos’ work in Mexico offers an example of effective leveraging of new resources. 
Its success in obtaining the USAID grant and related matching funds and its profile as a 
supporter of the community foundations network helped to secure complementary
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico ii
funding to support Mexican CFs. This is a great deal larger than the original USAID
grant (p. 39).
Leveraging is part of Synergos’ modus operandi. Accordingly, it is recommended that
USAID treat resource leveraging as part of the rationale for supporting NGOs like
Synergos, acknowledging the multiplier effect on public funds.
Achievements within the plan and beyond: organizational and individual learning 
Participants in all programs spoke highly of the personal and organizational learning that 
took place. It went beyond planned activities, techniques of foundation management or
conventional approaches to capacity development. Examples included:
· The complexity of capacity development and the centrality of intangibles like
legitimacy, confidence and commitment. These have no toolkit.
· Understanding organizational development in civil society as strengthening a culture
of civic responsibility and participation.
· The necessity of developing a Mexican, Brazilian or Mozambican interpretation of
the foundation “model”.
· Different methodologies of institutional development, from training workshops to
tailored programs of coaching and accompaniment. 
· The necessity of developing capacity within the community at large to complement
capacity within foundations.
The challenge now is to systematize participants’ experiences. Instructive examples
already exist within the program. The most important resources in this program are its
people, their knowledge, and their relationships. Organizational learning is an investment 
in these resources, not a cost of operating a foundation. Synergos’ most valuable
contribution may be its capacity to bring together the people and money to make this
happen.
(2) The Mozambique Program:
The summary assessment of the Mozambique program can be simply stated: the long￾established partnership between FDC and Synergos remained cordial during the grant
period, but the partners were largely ineffective in moving forward their main agenda of
strengthening FDC as a strategic grantmaking foundation. 
Conclusions and recommendations on the Mozambique program:
The validity of “the foundation model”: Synergos’ work with FDC rests on the “explicit 
assumption that the foundation model has a unique capacity.” But, Synergos’ partner is a 
“hybrid” entity which differs from the classical philanthropic model. The tension
between these two perspectives shows the need for sharper analysis of the fit between
foundation “models” and organizational realities in Mozambique.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico iii
Framing program objectives: The three program objectives would be more useful if they 
were more specific, their relative importance clear, and their budgets noted. The same
issue arises in the Mexico program. Accordingly, from the experience of these programs 
(pp. 12 and 29), it is recommended that Synergos and its partners ensure that:
· program objectives are tailored to the specific capacity issues and priorities of the
organizations concerned;
· the relationships and priority order among the components of the program strategy,
and the corresponding objectives, are clear;
· resource allocations for each program objective are clear;
· indicators are explained as markers for the program objectives. In many instances the 
indicators used provide interesting information about the program, but do not tap the 
essence of the objective.
Risks and enabling assumptions are essential in any program framework and should be 
prominent in the presentation of objectives. A summary assessment of the feasibility of
each objective is required, as well the manageability and feasibility of the ensemble. 
Synergos staff believe these issues were not dealt with thoroughly enough before the
program began. Therefore, it is recommended that in the design of future programs, 
Synergos and its partners give more comprehensive and systematic attention to risks and 
their mitigation strategies, and to enabling assumptions (p. 13).
Objective #2, strengthening the Synergos/FDC partnership: Both organizations have
learned about the complexities of institutional partnership. Both want to continue their
longstanding collaboration, and both can contribute to redefining their partnership. FDC
is interested to exchange knowledge and experience with their program counterparts in
Mexico and Brazil. It is recommended, therefore, that Synergos convene a face-to-face 
and electronic exchange among its program partners, to reflect on their work together
during the USAID Matching Grant initiative and to examine future co-operation (p.14).
The two organizations could have managed their partnership better:
· Broader participation in the design of the program could have created wider
knowledge within FDC about the purpose, resources and parameters of the program, 
and thus greater buy-in. A task-group approach would be one way of doing this.
· The program budget should be part of any future joint design and management
process.
· The ownership of the program appears to have been uneven. FDC staff saw it as
based within the management and governance of the Foundation. There appear to
have been mismatched expectations about what was possible or desirable. At
different times Synergos wanted to move the program forward, but the Foundation
had other priorities, particularly a protracted strategic planning process.
Objective #1, strengthening FDC as a strategic grantmaking organization: 
Strengthening FDC “as a grantmaking foundation” was probably a premature objective. 
It may have been more realistic to strengthen the grantmaking function within FDC. 
Executive turnover was a factor as well. For nearly 18 months in the middle of the grant 
period, FDC was without a fulltime ED, a senior executive with a mandate to implement 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico iv
the FDC/Synergos program. The program itself had financial targets, but included many
broader OD activities. In retrospect, it seems too ambitious—it depended on an
expeditious process of organizational change within FDC.
Objective #3, Building capacity with Mozambican NGOs. In light of their difficulties 
with the first two objectives, little was accomplished on this one. There is a positive
suggestion from FDC staff, that Synergos establish a small team of resource persons—
not necessarily within FDC—with the mandate and skill to support OD within
Mozambican CSOs. It is recommended that Synergos explore this idea (p. 23).
To conclude: FDC’s protracted process of organizational change appears to have
imposed real limitations on what it could achieve with Synergos. Synergos and FDC
staff organized several initiatives in OD and resource mobilization which addressed key
issues for FDC, and which participants said they valued highly. These activities
generated ideas, skills and working relationships which are potential assets for both the
individuals involved and for FDC as a whole. Realizing this potential is the challenge for 
FDC’s leadership
(3) The Mexico Program: The participants in the Mexico program can point to
substantial progress achieved in the period of the USAID grant, its resources significantly
augmented by others that Synergos and CEMEFI secured. Individually and collectively, 
the CFs are stronger than they were three years ago, although they still face a difficult
road ahead. CEMEFI is more effective in providing support to the CFG than it was when 
the program began. As an external support organization, Synergos has a better
understanding of which capacity-building methodologies are most effective in this
context. There are outstanding questions to be resolved within the web of organizational
relationships. An agreement on roles and the related division of labour between CEMEFI 
and Synergos, including the parties’ place within the CFG, would be a real asset in their 
future co-operation.
Contextual factors significantly influenced the program. Participants argued that
community foundations in Mexico are part of the broader process of consolidating
democracy—of building democratic institutions and a democratic political culture, and
promoting active citizenship. Capacity development programming in this context means
focusing on governance and co-operation between CFs and the wider community,
especially civil society. Intangibles are critical in this process—confidence, a sense of
identity and a commitment to social responsibility and civic participation, especially by
people historically excluded from public life. In these circumstances, the suitability of
“the foundation model” needs to be demonstrated, not asserted.
The institutional setting, secondly, is especially relevant. The core relationship between
CEMEFI and Synergos co-exists with other actors, notably the Community Foundations
Group. As CFs grow and mature, the environment becomes more complex, requiring
good co-ordination and communication among the different actors, and transparent
decisionmaking.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico v
Objective #2,strengthening the CEMEFI/Synergos partnership: This partnership
predates this program, and the two organizations have stated their wish to continue
working together. In practice, this objective includes Synergos’ co-operation with
individual CFs and the CFG. Balancing these two domains of partnership has been one 
of the major challenges for all participants. CEMEFI and Synergos planned their work
together over three-plus years, with the CFG Consultative Group an effective forum. 
They delivered all the items in their workplan, and worked together well to secure extra 
resources from bodies such as the Inter-American foundation. CFs spoke well of
Synergos’ readiness to adjust its capacity-building methods towards a more customized
approach, relying on coaching rather than training. Senior Fellows were valued as a
means of access to others’ experience.
The difficulties in the partnership included a basic imbalance: Synergos, as raiser and
manager of USAID funds, in effect took on part of the donor’s role. CEMEFI did not 
bring its own financial resources to the table, so that the imbalance in control of finances 
also unbalanced the autonomy of each party and their accountability to each other. There 
was also tension between the two over Synergos’ decision to work directly with CFs in
the last year of the program. CEMEFI preferred that Synergos work through its channels 
as the national body.
Objective #1, strengthening CEMEFI’s capacity to deliver capacity-building services to 
Mexican foundations: In the first part of the grant period, the partners planned and
carried out a capacity building program with CFs, relying heavily on training workshops. 
These generated limited lasting benefit for the foundations. Synergos staff learned that if
the CFs did not have their own OD agenda and an effective leadership, workshops had 
little developmental impact. In 2004/05, Synergos used matching funds to assist
individual foundations to develop their own OD plan, and to provide technical assistance 
in the form of a consultant. It is unclear whether CEMEFI will buy into this approach –
discussions continue. The support from CEMEFI and Synergos has been instrumental in
the growth of the CF network from 6 foundations at the start of the decade to nearly 20 
today, and as a membership organization CEMEFI is stronger for their presence. 
Differences emerged over strategies for capacity development, CEMEFI arguing that
technical assistance to foundations was not the best approach.
Programming roles are at issue here: should CEMEFI as a national representative body
provide OD services to its members, or should it encourage and co-ordinate others’
services? A division of labour between CEMEFI and Synergos would be a better
approach in principle; this may depend on the ability of the CFG to negotiate these roles 
with the two bodies.
Objective #3, to strengthen the technical and financial base of 24 members of the non￾profit sector: In practice, this objective was narrowed to strengthening the 19 members 
of the CFG. Program participants can legitimately claim real progress on this objective: 
CFs are now stronger individually and collectively. CFs cited their own growth in assets, 
staff and programs over the grant period. They know more about each other, and have a 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico vi
stronger sense of collective identity. The CFG is better organized, and in its strategic
thinking engages issues like its autonomy, and the nature of a Mexican CF. At the same 
time, challenges remain. Individually and collectively, the CFs are still heavily
dependent on external resources and friendship; local resource mobilization is imperative. 
The CFs are at different stages of organizational growth and maturity, so their OD assets 
and needs differ markedly, and devising a capacity development agenda is
correspondingly complex.
(4) The Brazil Program: For Synergos and its counterparts, the core issue in their 
work in Brazil is promoting understanding and practice of a different philanthropy—a 
philanthropy for social change that is civic, rather than corporate or clerical. This
requires working with diverse organizations that are interested in this approach, and its
tools—local resource mobilization to build endowments, and investment in the form of
grants to civil society at the community level in order to promote social change. 
Synergos has worked with diverse organizations to do so—NGOs and an association, as 
well as a small number of grantmaking foundations, including the first CFs in Brazil. 
Premises of the program: The program aimed to strengthen Synergos’ partnership with 
GIFE, an association promoting private social investment in Brazil; to provide capacity￾building services for up to 30 grantmaking foundations; and to consolidate Instituto Rio
and Abrinq as model grantmakers. Key assumptions that seemed plausible when the
program was designed proved in practice to be flawed. Brazilian foundations had limited 
interest in grantmaking to support community-level CSOs, nor in related functions like
endowment development and management. In retrospect, the initial analysis over￾estimated the grantmaking function within the philanthropic sector, as well as the demand 
for Synergos’ related services. In these circumstances, a technical assistance program to 
promote grantmaking foundations was premature. In addition, Synergos’ working
relations with key partners needed more work to cultivate the mutual confidence that
would sustain a program of institutional development.
Synergos effectively re-cast the program on two axes:
· With its partners, Synergos has sought to influence the Brazilian discourse on
philanthropy, introducing and promoting concepts of community foundations,
mobilizing local resources for investing in civil society and social change, using tools
like endowments and grantmaking.
· Synergos has provided practical support to the OD agendas of a group of diverse
organization interested in new forms of philanthropy. These include NGOs,
grantmakers, and the first Brazilian CFs. There is also a nascent network of
grantmaking entities.
Objectives #1 & #2, strengthening the GIFE/Synergos partnership and providing
capacity-building services to grantmaking organizations:
· GIFE and Synergos have built a solid partnership to support GIFE as a representative 
body (becoming a network) promoting private social investment in Brazil. GIFE
aims to be a source and a forum for ideas. An example is an electronic version of
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico vii
Alliance magazine in Portuguese, a year’s production and distribution financed by
Synergos.
· Synergos has broadened its partnerships to include other foundations as well as NGOs 
and other CSOs interested in philanthropy for social change. Not all are grantmaking
entities, although Synergos has helped to create a fledgling network of grantmakers.
· Working with GIFE members and these other organizations, Synergos has organized 
capacity-building activities intended to introduce concepts and practices in
community philanthropy, and to respond to related OD agendas—resource 
mobilization, endowment building and management, communications and marketing, 
grantmaking program design, and so on. The organizations involved have responded 
positively, drawing on Synergos’ resources such as Senior Fellows to move on
resource-mobilization and endowment-building strategies.
These programming initiatives have worked well because there exists active interest and
leadership among the Brazilian organizations involved, complemented by a flexible and
timely response by Synergos. 
Objective #3, strengthening Abrinq and Instituto Rio as model grantmakers. This
objective is misplaced. Abrinq is a hybrid organization, with only one of nine programs 
based on grantmaking. Its endowment is a contingency reserve fund for close-out. 
Instituto Rio, Brazil’s first CF, has been preoccupied with surviving its first years. It is 
now established with a strong board and good executive leadership. Synergos has played 
a vital role in this achievement. 
Synergos has nonetheless made a substantial contribution to Abrinq, a prominent and
effective children’s rights organization. A Senior Fellow, Nelson Colón of the Puerto
Rico CF, visited Abrinq twice in 2003 and 2004, and make a seminal contribution to the 
its longterm strategic plan, and its action program. He did so when Abrinq was facing a 
leadership crisis, and helped the organization regain its sense of direction and purpose. 
For Synergos, Instituto Rio is its “greatest success story” in Brazil. The Institute has
brought new Board members to the foundation, has provided administrative backup and
technical assistance (in the form of Senior Fellows), has maintained a regular dialogue on
strategic issues and has helped Board members in making contacts with international
foundations. Instituto Rio has just established Brazil’s first Community Trust Fund, and
has begun a program of grantmaking to community-based organizations in its tough
home neighbourhood of Rio’s West Zone. A program of capacity-building accompanies 
its grants, and the foundation is encouraging its grantees to form a network for mutual
support and community organization.
(5) The Headquarters Program: 
Synergos’ HQ program aimed to strengthen its own systems of managing and supporting
field programs. The Institute revised its systems of financial administration and trained
its staff in their use. The coverage of the training was complete for New York-based 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico viii
staff, less so for field staff. Financial reporting had been “a vexing problem” for
Synergos during the program; field staff are still frustrated by their inability to secure
timely and accurate reports on their budgets from Synergos’ Finance department. 
During the grant period Synergos also installed a new planning and budgeting system. 
This is outcomes-based, and includes a monitoring and evaluation framework. 
In both areas, the structures of more effective program management systems are in place; 
the test will be their use in the years ahead.
One observation and three recommendations follow (pp. 57/58):
· Reasonable deadlines for compiling monthly financial program reports are as
follows. Field offices can complete monthly reports and send them electronically to
HQ within one week of monthend. HQ should provide draft composite program
expense and performance-to-budget reports to field offices and program managers
within the month.
· It is recommended that the Institute use a programmatic basis for its budgeting and 
financial reporting, rather than the line expenditure categories used for the USAID
grant and continued in the Institute’s 2006 plan. Such a budget would allow
Synergos to show how it planned to apply its various resources to its programmatic 
purposes in the countries where it operates, and to report on their actual expenditure.
· As part of that process, it is recommended that Synergos present staff costs as a 
programming resource and expense. Synergos’ staff are the key program resource 
for the organization. Its budgets should reflect this reality.
· Finally, it is recommended that Synergos invest at least 2.5% of its programming
budget in evaluation. Evaluation is a key resource for organizational learning.
(6) Conclusion:
Was the grant effective? Yes, with qualifiers. The programming supported by the
USAID grant and by the independent donors’ matching funds was certainly effective in
Brazil and Mexico. In Mexico, there remain some unresolved issues in the principal
partnership, but these are not immobilizing, nor have they compromised the effectiveness
of the support provided to the CFG. In Brazil, the scope of the program is relatively
small, but its potential reach is substantial. Synergos and its counterparts are in at the
ground floor in defining a new philanthropy.
The picture in Mozambique is more complicated. Although the main partnership has
been ineffective in realizing most of the program objectives, Synergos has supported
activities which may offer a basis for future advances in fundraising and endowment￾building, for example, if FDC can act effectively on its own organizational-development 
agenda.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico ix
Do the results represent good value? Estimating “good value” for the various
participants in the program requires that the potential implicit in each program be taken
into account, and hence the longer-term and broader impact of the three country
programs. Both the Mexico and Brazil programs have supported organizations which
individually and collectively hold considerable potential, if the broader political and
institutional environment remains at least non-destructive.
The answer for the Mozambique program is more contingent. The deciding variable
seems to be organizational dynamics within the principal partner organization. If FDC
can assemble the energy, organizational purpose, and leadership among staff and
management to clarify its role and strategic directions and to strengthen its financial base, 
then the seeds planted during this program may take root.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
This report is organized according to the guidelines of the USAID Office for Private
Voluntary Co-operation (PVC), informed by the priorities in Synergos’ terms of
reference for the evaluation. The latter are included in Annex I, Note on Method. The 
evaluation focused on the effectiveness of Synergos’ programming in Mozambique,
Mexico and Brazil, and this emphasis is reflected in this report. The discussion of
program effectiveness thus includes a commentary on achievement of objectives in each
country program and on the Synergos Headquarters program, as well as a section on
issues relevant to the program as a whole. The report also examines program
management within the sub-section on the Headquarters program. This topic is treated
more selectively than program effectiveness. The PVC guidelines request tabular
summaries of strengths and weaknesses of the program, the achievements of results noted 
in the DIP, and the program partnerships. These tables appear in Annexes II, III, and IV, 
grouped for comparative reference.
2.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND:
Following is a summary of the program being evaluated, “Enhancing the Resource Base
for Development in Brazil, Mexico and Mozambique”, managed by The Synergos
Institute of New York City, in concert with its partner organizations in Mozambique,
Mexico and Brazil. This summary is drawn largely from the revised DIP of July 2003.
Origins and rationale for the program: In all three program countries, Synergos had a 
working relationship with the principal partner organizations (noted in the Evaluation
Profile Sheet) which predated the USAID Matching-Grant program. In the case of
CEMEFI in Mexico and FDC in Mozambique, these organizational links dated from the 
early 1990’s. Synergos’ co-operation with GIFE in Brazil began in the latter part of that 
decade. The USAID program offered the organizations the opportunity to make their
work more systematic and to expand its scale. The circumstances and opportunities 
differed for each organization, and these are noted in the assessment of the program. In
Mexico, for example, the USAID project offered resources with which CEMEFI and
Synergos could support the emergent and rapidly growing community foundation
movement in that country. More generally, the application to USAID was Synergos’ first 
foray into the world of bilateral development donor agencies, and represented an
opportunity to diversify and strengthen its revenue streams. An initial proposal from
Synergos to the USAID/PVC office was not approved. In 2001/02, the Institute
elaborated the proposal for the current program, for which the agreement was signed on
June 25, 2002. 
Baseline Analysis and Point of Departure for the Program: The overall program goal 
is set out in the Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP): to strengthen a non-governmental 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 2
financial and technical resource base for development in Brazil, Mexico and
Mozambique, and to generate models for adaptation in other countries.1
 In each country 
program, Synergos and its principal counterparts carried out a process of consultation and 
institutional diagnostics to establish the capacity issues, assets and priorities. These
provided the basis for the objectives of each program. These are cast in similar language, 
which thus provides comparable terms of discussion across the country programs. Each
set of objectives includes:
· an institutional development objective, reflecting the intent to strengthen the
capacity of the principal partner(s) to provide services to grantmaking organizations
and to civil society organizations more generally;
· an objective to strengthen the partnership between Synergos and its Southern
counterparts, reflecting the co-operation between these organizations and the
opportunity to make their relationship more systematic and effective; and
· an objective to provide capacity-development services directly to foundations or 
civil society organizations active in social and economic development.
The centre of gravity of the program, then, is the collaboration between Synergos and its 
principal partners, the purpose of which is enhancing the capacity of the Southern
organizations. In some instances, as explained below in the discussion of the Mexico and 
Brazil programs for example, Synergos’ emphasis shifted towards the third objective
(capacity-building with individual foundations) in the latter part of the program.
Complementing these three country programs was a Headquarters program intended to
strengthen Synergos’ capacity to manage and support its field programs. This program
reflected USAID’s dual logic for its Matching-Grant program: to strengthen Southern
civil society organizations, but also the U.S. private voluntary organization (PVO)
assisting them. The first of the two objectives in the HQ program thus addressed
Synergos’ management capabilities, including program planning and budgeting,
monitoring and evaluation, and systems of staff development and performance review. 
The second aimed to improve Synergos’ ability to use its knowledge resources, such as 
the Senior Fellows program, more effectively in support of field programs.
The financial allocations for each of these programs and the corresponding actual
expenditures to Nov. 30, 2005, were as follows (all figures US $):
Income source: Brazil Mexico Mozamb. Headqtrs Totals:
USAID 522,888 480,415 344,095 152,495 1,499,891
Matching funds 522,888 480,415 344,095 152,495 1,499,891
Budget Totals 1,045,776 960,830 688,190 304,990 2,999,782
Expenditures to Nov 30/05:
USAID 615,108 453,239 317,896 113,648 1,499,891
Matching funds 360,201 382,796 426,483 158,021 1,327,501
Exp. Totals: 975,309 836,035 744,379 271,669 2,827,392
 
1
 DIP (revised July 2003), p. 1.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 3
Program Implementation Status: The program is complete, with any outstanding
disbursements to be completed by Dec. 31, 2005. This evaluation is its final component.
Synergos’ Development Plans: The Institute is reviewing and rethinking its work, in
part because it has just appointed a new President—a change in senior management is an 
opportunity for strategic thinking. In addition, however, as the comments on the country
programs make clear, both Synergos and its Southern counterparts are re-examining their 
longterm relationships, to decide where to go with them and how. The evaluation of the 
USAID-funded program, with its emphasis on strengthening partnerships, presents an
obvious opportunity to address this issue. The discussions now under way will also
include an assessment of whether and under what conditions to engage with a large 
bilateral donor agency such as USAID. As noted, this program grant was Synergos’ first 
funding relationship with a bilateral, and there are diverse views within the Institute about 
its benefits and challenges.
From this reviewer’s perspective, two factors will be critical in Synergos’ internal debate. 
First, the Institute’s preferred domain or program focus will likely continue to be the
institutional development of foundations and foundation-like organizations, particularly
those which work at the community level. Secondly, its principal resource in this
endeavour will be the commitment of its people and their knowledge: about methods of
work; the debate about civil society; about contacts in the form of people, organizations 
and networks; policy issues, and the like. Synergos’ budget and its fundraising
capabilities are not inconsiderable for an NGO, but its financial resources are modest in
the larger picture of the development enterprise. What it brings to its work of
institutional development, and what will determine how well it does that, is the
knowledge, commitment and creativity of its people.
(Section 5.0, the conclusion to this report, includes additional comments on its
implications for Synergos’ future directions.)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 4
3.0 PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS:
3.1 Synergos’ Program Approach:
The Synergos Institute sets outs its overall program approach clearly and succinctly in the 
opening pages of the DIP.2
 Its work in the three countries included in this program forms 
part of its global program, which is intended to mobilize resources to reduce poverty and 
increase social equity. Synergos usually works with foundations and grantmaking
organizations. In this program it has focused particularly but not exclusively on
community foundations.
Synergos cites several key principles which guide its approach:
· working through partnership and collaboration;
· promoting peer-to-peer learning and capacity-building;
· strengthening indigenous institutions and mobilizing resources for development; and
· bridging social and economic divides that inhibit development
The Institute works at both national and regional or local levels within its program
countries. Synergos staff describe their role not as funders of Southern organizations, but 
as networkers and facilitators, offering their partners knowledge and contacts through the 
Institute’s wider philanthropic network of people and organizations. This network has
nodes in North America, particularly in the U.S., the site of Synergos’ head office, but
extends to all continents. Synergos thus draws on several programming tools:
· Production, financing and dissemination of research and information on the
grantmaking sector, including relevant practice and policy options.
· Fellowships and consultancies, including its Synergos Senior Fellows Program,
which enables peer learning and exchange among grantmaking professionals.
· Capacity-building programs, including workshops and tailored accompaniment. 
These focus on issues such as programming, strategic planning, grant and project
management, fundraising and endowment-building, and board development.
· Professional exchanges enable foundation staff to pursue in-service professional
development through attachments to counterpart organizations.
Two key assumptions inform the program. These are noted briefly within the country
program sections of the DIP, and are discussed below as part of the assessment of
objectives in those programs. We mention them here, however, because they can be seen 
as part of Synergos’ overall approach to its work. The first assumption holds that the 
foundation model is relevant to civil society in Southern countries because of its
emphasis on mobilizing local resources to support development, and on the sustainable
maintenance and use of those resources through endowments and grantmaking. Other
important aspects of the model include the convening role of foundations—their potential
to bring together different social actors in a common cause. Secondly, through their
grantmaking and capacity-development resources, foundations can play a part in
 
2
 This summary is taken from pages 3 and 4.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 5
strengthening civil society organizations in the wider community. It follows that the
work of such foundations offers a multiplier effect for Synergos’ resources.
3.2 Common Issues within the Program:
As the evaluation unfolded, the discussions of country programs generated issues relevant 
to the program as a whole. Several are noted here, as reference points for the later
commentary on the individual programs. The first two issues address the way Synergos 
has framed and presented the program: the primacy of context, and the treatment of
partners’ roles within the program, particularly those played by Synergos. Secondly, two 
important issues stand out from the implementation of the program. These are the
opportunities and achievements in leveraging additional program resources and the nature 
and extent of individual and organizational learning. Both could be described as
achievements that went beyond the original plan and proposal. Different respondents
gave their own interpretation and emphasis to all these issues, so we have used brief
examples to show these perspectives.
Framing the program: the primacy of context:
The broader social and institutional setting of Synergos’ country programs is generally
underplayed in the planning documents for the program, such as the DIP and the related 
DIP Planning Matrices of March 2004. These offer little information, for example, on
the national socio-political context and its influence on the shape and texture of capacity
issues for foundations in Mozambique, Mexico or Brazil, or its implications for the
capacity development strategies of an organization like Synergos.3
 The DIP notes the 
diagnostic processes used in the conception and planning of the country programs, but
offers no detail on these, nor are the analyses appended. Nor do these analyses find
expression in the goals and objectives of all three country programs, which are stated in
similar terms (as noted in the Program Background section above.) As a result the
program as presented seems generic, rather than crafted to respond to the particular
challenges posed by the condition of philanthropy in Mozambique, Brazil and Mexico. 
Synergos staff said this approach was deliberate. It reflected the Institute’s understanding 
of USAID’s requirements. In response to Synergos’ first proposal in 2001, the Agency
requested that program objectives be cast in similar language to allow comparison across 
its component parts. 
By contrast, respondents in all programs emphasized the specific characteristics of the
context in which they worked. From their commentary, a picture thus emerged of a
program operating in environments characterized not by homogeneity but by complexity,
diversity and dynamism, in which the programming challenge has been to understand and 
 
3
 The terms “capacity development” and “capacity building” are used interchangeably in this report. The 
author’s preference is for capacity development, signalling a broader process; where respondents or 
Synergos’ documents speak of capacity building, that phrase is used.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 6
adapt to the special circumstances of time and place, people and organizations. To be
sure, these circumstances and their influence are more evident now, with the benefit of
hindsight and several years of programming experience, than they were five years ago
when the program was being designed. Nevertheless, respondents’ insistence on
understanding these issues does signal that future programs of this kind should present a 
rigorous analysis of the context, so that program strategy and objectives can be seen
within and tailored to their broader setting. In capacity development, context is content.
Three levels of the context warrant analysis: the national, the institutional4
 and the
operational. Mexico, Brazil and Mozambique have very different histories, political
economies and development trajectories. In these circumstances, the relationship
between civil society and the state, for example, merits exploration in some detail if an
organization such as Synergos aims to intervene to strengthen civil society and/or civil
society organizations. There is an implicit friendly challenge for Synergos here: if, as
the Institute says in the DIP (p. 23), “the foundation model” offers real advantages to
civil society in Mexico, let us say, then its appropriateness to the Mexican context needs 
to be explored and demonstrated rather than simply asserted. Indeed one of the questions 
raised in all three countries was whether it is useful to speak of the foundation model—
defining a Mexican or Brazilian or Mozambican interpretation of others’ experience and
examples is very much a work in progress.
In all countries, secondly, Synergos works with counterpart organizations. Hence, the
institutional setting of each program and the quality of its core relationships largely
determine its limits and possibilities. The number of counterpart organizations varies
from program to program, but in all three there have been complex and occasionally
difficult relationships to navigate, relationships sometimes shaped by strong—not always
helpful—interpersonal dynamics. There is nothing unusual in this. There is, however, a
question that needs to be addressed by Synergos and by its counterparts: what
organizational conditions need to be in place if a partnership is to work well? In all three 
countries, Synergos and its counterparts built on existing relationships. These gave both
parties a valuable if variable measure of familiarity and trust. In retrospect, however,
respondents argued, both sides should have scrutinized more thoroughly their
institutional readiness for the program.
The third level of context, the operational or programmatic, is relevant to initiatives (such
as this one) which focus on organizational development. A program of this kind must 
contend with the “so what?” question: do measures intended to make organizations more 
effective lead to benefits in the wider community? It is not uncommon for organizational
development (OD) initiatives to focus on issues and interventions within an organization; 
yet in this philanthropic enterprise, the rationale for doing so, and the ultimate indicator
of success, is an organization that plays a more effective role in its wider community. 
 
4
 The literature on capacity development often makes a distinction between individual organizations (or 
groups of organizations) and institutions. The latter terms refers to sets of established social practices and 
customs, as well as related laws and regulations. Marriage and land tenure are examples of “institutions” in 
this sense. In this report, we will use “organization” and “institution” interchangeably, reflecting 
conversational practice.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 7
Synergos typically works with intermediary organizations, such as foundations, which in
turn support community organizations of one kind or another. There are thus several
links in the chain to be examined, if one is to assess benefits (or problems) in the wider 
community which may be attributed to Synergos’ efforts. This interplay between
organization and community is not prominent in the planning documents, however. 
These focus more on inter- and intra-organizational relationships. Nonetheless,
respondents in all three countries highlighted this aspect of their work—the challenges
they faced in working out ways to respond to poverty, or to build stronger citizens’
organizations, or to promote a culture of active citizenship and institutional
responsiveness. Again, in future programs of this kind, this piece of contextual logic
needs to be addressed.
The relationship between organizational effectiveness and community benefit does not
lend itself to quick or easy analysis, however. This is especially so if diffuse but
important factors like legitimacy, social values and political culture are a key element in
that relationship—and in Mexico and Brazil especially, respondents argued that this was
the case. Foundations had a major role to play in building a culture of active citizenship. 
To do so, they had to be legitimate actors within their communities. In such
circumstances, answering the question “Did we succeed?” is not at all straightforward. It 
is possible to identify summary indicators of organizational effectiveness, such as
resource mobilization, that offer some precision. Yet the complementary “And so?”
question, directed (for example) to the wider domain of building a civic and political
culture, or to maintaining institutional legitimacy, is both more important and more
difficult to answer. It is clear from respondents’ comments, however, that it should be
integral to any program of this kind.
To conclude this section, it is recommended to Synergos and its partners that these 
three aspects of the context of the program be factored into the rationale for any future 
program, to present a more detailed and sharper setting for the program strategy and
objectives.
Framing the program: acknowledging partners’ roles
An early and forthright examination of the main partners’ expected roles in the program, 
especially those of Synergos, would usefully complement the analysis of the institutional
context of the program. Roles are not unchanging, and have to be negotiated rather than
proclaimed. The various actors may also differ in their perceptions of their and others’ 
roles. A statement of roles at the start of the program, moreover, is no substitute for the 
skills required to negotiate an adjustment later in the program, or to balance the
imperatives of competing roles. It may, however, help the different actors to establish a 
contract among themselves, and to clarify expectations. The discussion of partnerships in
the country programs suggests that there were some mismatched expectations and/or a
lack of clarity about roles within some of the key organizational relationships. A
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 8
deliberate and extensive negotiation of roles at the outset of the program, including a
benchmarking statement of roles, might have anticipated some of these difficulties.5
Underlying the expectations and negotiation of roles is a fundamentally important issue
within partnerships: are the participating organizations are fully engaged with and
committed to the partnership? An evaluator’s report of the GIFE/Synergos partnership in
Brazil argues that the effective design and implementation of joint action in a partnership 
requires the parties’ full engagement.6
 It will become clear from the assessment of the
country programs that this condition was unevenly realized in the program as a whole. 
As one might expect, the more wholehearted was the mutual commitment to the
partnership, the more effective the organizations were in realizing their agenda.
To appreciate the challenge facing all participants in working through roles and
responsibilities, we only need note Synergos’ multiple roles within the program. These
include: institutional fundraiser (from USAID and the several sources of matching
funds); manager of the entire program, hence manager of and reporter on the use of
donors’ funds; principal interlocutor between the program participants and the donors;
organizer and/or direct provider of technical assistance to participating organizations;
networker, facilitating counterparts’ access to sources of advice and information;
supporter of and participant in organizational learning; source of accompaniment to
people and organizations within the country programs. These roles do not fit easily
together, and the aggregate weight they gave to Synergos probably unbalanced some of
the program partnerships. Both in program reports and in interviews, for example,
Synergos staff noted the tension between their historic role (one they understood) as
supportive partner to Southern organizations, and the de facto donor’s role required by
their function as manager of USAID funds.
Achievements beyond the plan: leveraging new resources
Respondents argued convincingly that the program shows major achievements in two
related areas, leverage and learning. Synergos’ work in Mexico offers an example of
effective leveraging of new resources. Its success in securing the USAID grant and
related matching funds, and its profile as a supporter of the community foundations
network, both helped to secure complementary funding. The latter included a matching
grant from the Inter-American Foundation, directly to CEMEFI, to enhance the
endowments of community foundations. Synergos was also the principal agent in
securing the funds for the Border Philanthropy Partnership, and for the program of
institutional support to CFs financed by the Hewlett Foundation. In their financial scale, 
 
5
 A resource exists that may be useful for future such programs. Two OD consultants, Alan Fowler and 
Joseph McMahon, offer a pre-partnership facilitation process to assist collaborating organizations in 
identifying potential problems and planning ways of resolving them. See Inter-Mediation.org, Making 
Development Relationships More Effective, Productive and Equitable Using a “Partnership Facilitator”
(March, 2004: Denver, USA, and Herbertsdale, South Africa).
6
 Simone Coelho, IDECA, “Avaliação da Parceria GIFE-Synergos” January, 2005, p. 4. 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 9
these initiatives are a great deal larger than the original USAID grant and its matching
monies.7
Synergos’ leveraging experience and contacts may appear to be ad hoc and opportunistic 
in the most positive sense, but are a standard feature of its modus operandi. Nor is 
Synergos’ experience unique—the practice is widespread and systematic. Accordingly, it 
is recommended that USAID treat resource leveraging as an integral part of the
rationale for supporting an NGO like Synergos, acknowledging the multiplier effect on
public funds.
Achievements within the plan and beyond: organizational and individual learning 
Respondents in all country programs testified to the amount and variety of personal and
organizational learning derived from the program. In a sense, this is only to be expected, 
because the program has been premised on learning for organizational development. 
There are thus numerous examples of “learning activities” within the workplans of each
country program on resource mobilization, grant and project management, endowment
management, governance, and so on. Respondents chose to emphasize, however,
learning that overspilled the banks of planned activities and went beyond techniques of
foundation management or conventional approaches to capacity development. Examples
of issues cited include:
· The complexity of capacity development, especially the centrality of intangibles like
legitimacy, confidence and commitment. For these there is no handy toolkit or
software.
· Understanding organizational development in civil society as strengthening a culture
of civic responsibility and participation, as building institutions that are owned by and 
responsive to citizens and communities, and as encouraging philanthropy that 
promotes social transformation. Many respondents saw these issues as more
important than “better management” narrowly understood.
· The necessity of developing a Mexican, Brazilian or Mozambican interpretation of
the foundation “model”, suited to the nation’s culture and society. Complementing—
not contradicting—this focus was an emphasis on the value of exposure to others’
experience through mechanisms such as professional exchanges and the Senior
Fellows program. 
· The complexities and challenges of institutional partnerships, especially the necessity
of building a mutual commitment to the agenda.
· The limits and possibilities of different methodologies of institutional development,
from training workshops to tailored programs of coaching and accompaniment. 
· The necessity of developing capacity within the community at large to complement
capacity within foundations, so that foundations can use their resources more
effectively. 
· The benefits and pitfalls associated with large multi-year projects financed by a large 
official development agency like USAID. 
 
7
 In 2005, the Border Philanthropy Partnership budget alone was just over $900,000. Of this, about one￾half ($450,000) is to be used on programming in Mexico. The three-year allocation of the USAID grant to 
programming in Mexico was $480,415. See also the textbox below, p. 39.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 10
Running through all these examples is a thread of exchange or reciprocity. The planning
documents focus on Synergos’ support for capacity development within Southern
organizations. From this perspective, Synergos is the developer, and its counterparts the 
developee. Synergos staff, conversely, emphasized what they have learned from and
with their Southern colleagues about different capacity development strategies, and about
the subtleties of social and institutional contexts. Another recurrent theme in their
comments was the necessity and complexity of developing a national approach to
philanthropy for social change, particularly community philanthropy, and for Synergos to
adjust and adapt its thinking and practice accordingly.
The widespread agreement8
 on learning is a sure indicator of achievement. The challenge 
now for the program participants is to systematize their experiences, and to gather and
apply knowledge that may be latent and dispersed. Instructive examples already exist
within the ambit of the program. These elaborate Synergos’ existing documents such as 
the Foundation Building Sourcebook.
9
 In Mexico, for example, Fundación Comunitaria 
Oaxaca has provided a valuable precedent by compiling a record of its history, and
lessons it has learned and applied along the way.10 Participants in the program have
created and used different diagnostic tools adapted to the specific circumstances of
Mexican CFs. Synergos staff have in turn found these useful in their programming in
other countries, such as Ecuador, Zimbabwe and South Africa. The Brazil program has 
invested in documenting case studies and guides to philanthropic practice in that
country.11 Work of this kind can be time-consuming, and some respondents mentioned 
that foundation staff often feel over-burdened by the day-to-day demands of running their 
organizations. From another perspective, the most important resources within this
program are its people, their knowledge, and their relationships. Hence, an investment in 
organizational learning is an investment in these resources, not a cost of operating a
foundation. For a support organization like Synergos, its most valuable long-term 
contribution may be its capacity to assemble the people and money to make this
happen.12
 
 
8
 Sometimes unanimous. Every respondent in the Mexico program mentioned it, for example.
9
 Published by Synergos in 2000.
10 Fundación Comunitaria Oaxaca, “Lessons Learned”. Available on its website, www.fundación￾oaxaca.org
11 Examples include GIFE/Synergos, “O Investimento Social Privado e os Fundos Patrimoniais: Um Estudo 
de Caso sobre o Desenvolvimento do Endowment da Fundação Boticário de Proteção à Natureza,” São 
Paulo, 2003; Jose Bernardo Toro, A construção do público: cidadania, democracia e participação, Rio de 
Janeiro: (X) Brasil and SENAC Rio, 2005; GIFE, Guia sobre Parcerias e Alianças em Investimento Social 
Privado , São Paulo, 2003.
12 One option may be to use the experience of this program as a basis for a proposal for applied research 
into institutional development. USAID offers an example of potential donor interest with its 2005 Annual 
Program Statement, “FY 2005 Research Options for DCHA/PVC-ASHA” (Washington, DC, 2005). This 
particular window had closed by time of writing.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 11
3.3 The Mozambique Program
3.3.1 Mozambique Program Goal and Objectives:
The DIP sets out three objectives for the FDC/Synergos program. Together, these
comprise a capacity development agenda to enhance FDC’s role as a grantmaking 
foundation. They address the three domains of Synergos’ overall program, noted in the 
Program Background section above: FDC as an institution, the partnership between
Synergos and FDC, and FDC’s support to community-based organizations (CBOs) and 
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) within Mozambican civil society as a whole. 
The objectives are as follows:
#1 Institutional development for FDC: to build the capacity and resources of FDC as a 
strategic grantmaking foundation to promote strong civil society development
organizations in Mozambique;
#2 A stronger FDC/Synergos partnership: to strengthen the FDC/Synergos partnership 
[in order] to build a stronger technical and financial resource base for civil society
development organizations in Mozambique;
#3 Capacity-building for civil society organizations: to strengthen the technical and 
financial resource base for community development in Mozambique, through FDC’s
capacity-building services to civil society development organizations.
These objectives are intended to contribute to the overall goal of Synergos’ programming
in Mozambique: to strengthen the non-governmental financial and technical resource 
base for development in Mozambique, generating models for adaptation in other
countries. (The similarity with the overall program goal is evident.)
Comments on the program goal and objectives:
(1) Validity of “the foundation model”: First, Synergos’ work with FDC rests on 
the “explicit assumption that the foundation model has a unique capacity and a unique
role in nurturing successful sustainable development initiatives.” (DIP, p. 36) How
appropriate is this assumption where Synergos’ partner is a “hybrid” entity? A senior
FDC official described FDC in these terms, noting several points where the organizations 
departs from the classical philanthropic model: FDC has been an operating social￾development NGO as well as a grantmaking foundation; it is also a membership
organization; it has a community orientation, but is national in scope. The tension
between these two perspectives exemplifies the need for sharper analysis of the
relationship between foundation “models” or principles and organizational realities in
Mozambique.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 12
(2) Framing the program objectives: Secondly, the three objectives would be more 
useful if they were more specific and their inter-relationship spelled out. The
presentation of the objectives could be improved in several respects: 
· The objectives are not all of similar weight or importance. The first one, institutional 
development in FDC, is the most important, addressing the core of the program. The 
second, a stronger partnership between FDC and Synergos, is an end in itself, but also 
an enabling condition for the other two objectives. The third, capacity-building with
Mozambican CSOs, is of less immediate importance within this program, but is part
of the longer-term raison d’être for this program and for FDC’s work as well. These 
characteristics could be explained in a short preamble.
· The capacity challenges to be addressed are not reflected in the objectives. To be 
useful, each objective should be more specific, including the key elements of a
capacity profile, tailored to reflect the issue(s) for the organization(s) involved. For
example, the primary objective, “To build the capacity and resources of FDC as a
strategic grantmaking foundation,” is stated in fairly general and aggregated terms. 
What aspect of FDC’s capacity is at issue here, and how does “capacity” differ from
“resources”? In a similar vein, what type of “capacity-building services” are required 
by Mozambican CSOs? And what does it mean “to strengthen the FDC/Synergos
partnership?”
· Lastly, the objectives are not linked to the budget available, i.e., from USAID and the 
donors of matching funds. Adding this information to the objectives would enable
the reader to see their respective financial weight and priority, and would allow an
assessment of the cost-effectiveness of related activities.
Accordingly, it is recommended that in future such programs, Synergos and its partner 
organizations clarify the priority and inter-relationship among the program objectives;
tailor these objectives to the specific capacity issues of the organization(s) and country
concerned; and link resource allocations to objectives.
(3) Risks and enabling assumptions: Thirdly, risks and enabling assumptions are 
an essential part of any program framework and should be prominent in the presentation
of these objectives. The DIP format asks that “Additional Information” include
“problems and challenges likely to be faced during implementation”. Synergos’ DIP
provides two short paragraphs (p. 46), noting that the partners have identified no
overriding problems to interfere with effective implementation. The DIP does note 
Mozambique’s continuing vulnerability to natural disaster, and the lingering effects of the
war on the country’s infrastructure, especially in the more remote rural districts. What is 
required, however, is a summary assessment of the feasibility of each objective, as well
as the manageability and feasibility of the ensemble. This implies a reality check: What 
did the actors assume would help them do what they wanted to do? And what might limit 
them? These might include social or institutional forces, or personal factors, as well as 
broader ecological or political processes. The answers to these questions should also take 
account of the contextual logic of the program as a whole—the relevance of a
“foundation model” to FDC’s own circumstances and to Mozambican civil society. 
Synergos staff members were candid in saying that these issues had not been dealt with
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 13
thoroughly enough before the program began, and a senior FDC staff member implicitly
concurred, saying that FDC had not been ready for the program.
It is thus recommended that in the design of future programs, Synergos and its partners 
give more comprehensive and systematic attention to risks (and mitigation strategies) and
to enabling assumptions. This assessment should flow readily enough from the
contextual analysis highlighted earlier, and should take account as well of the dynamics
of partnership. (See comments immediately below on Objective #2, strengthening the
Synergos/FDC partnership.)
3.3.2 Assessing Objectives: #2, strengthening the FDC/Synergos partnership
This objective is assessed first because it is in part an enabling condition for the other
two: the quality of the partnership between the two organizations shapes the quality of the 
work they do together. Margaret Wheatley’s acute observation, that capacity in an
organization depends on the quality of its relationships, is relevant here.13
Positives…
FDC and Synergos have a long history of partnership. This predates the birth of FDC in 
1994, and includes its predecessor, the Association for Community Development (ADC), 
created in 1990. There is a strong and longstanding personal bond between the Board 
Chairs of the two organizations, which was the basis of Synergos’ original assistance to
ADC and FDC. FDC staff were very clear about the importance of Synergos’ support 
over the years. The Institute has been a source of valued advice and accompaniment, and 
a means of access to other foundations’ experience, especially in developing countries.
(The Senior Fellows program was praised in this respect.) Synergos’ endorsement of
FDC gave the young organization credibility, and its readiness to open doors and
encourage relationships in philanthropic circles within the U.S. has been a major asset in
FDC’s fundraising successes. Not least important, finally, has been the part played by
senior Synergos officials in fundraising for FDC, the unrestricted resources from the
U.S.-based Friends of FDC being a vital source of operating revenue for the Foundation.
The collaboration has meant benefits for Synergos, as well. Synergos staff say that the 
Institute has in turn acquired legitimacy because of its association with Mme Machel, the 
President of FDC. The special circumstances faced by FDC in establishing itself as a
foundation in Mozambique, and its novel strategies for creating its endowment from
Mozambican sources, have informed Synergos’ understanding of the models and
dynamics of foundations in developing countries. FDC’s experience is noted in
Synergos’ foundations sourcebook.14
 
13 Margaret Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World Revised
(San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1999.)
14 Synergos, Foundation Building Sourcebook (New York, 2000), pp. 189 –91.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 14
Staff in both organizations have also learned about the complexities of managing
organizational relationships effectively, as they have worked through their partnership
during the years of the USAID grant. The assessment of this objective offered in this
Report is based largely on commentary from Synergos and FDC staff, and thus reflects
knowledge derived from practice. The test of that knowledge will be their ability to
design and implement a new phase of co-operation after the USAID grant ends in 2005.
There is an immediate opportunity here for FDC and Synergos. Both are re-examining 
their various longstanding relationships, and both have used this evaluation to assist them
in doing so. Because the long co-operation between the Institute and FDC will almost 
certainly continue after the USAID grant, both parties have the opportunity to apply what 
they have learned about partnerships. This could be done in at least two ways.
First, both can contribute to redefining the Synergos/FDC relationship. FDC staff were 
unanimous in saying that they valued the link with Synergos and wanted to continue to
work with the Institute. They believed that FDC was now sufficiently mature to define
its priorities clearly, and to negotiate roles and approaches with Synergos so as to address 
these priorities effectively together. Some relevant issues and options are noted below in
the “Areas for Improvement” section. Secondly, however, because the Mozambique sub￾program is one of three within the larger USAID Matching Grant program, FDC is
interested in exchanging knowledge and experience with their counterparts in Mexico
and Brazil, and respondents in those countries have shown a complementary interest. 
It is recommended, therefore, that Synergos convene a face-to-face and electronic
exchange among its partners in the larger program, to reflect together on their work
during the USAID Matching Grant initiative, and to examine options for future co￾operation.
…and Some Areas for Improvement:
The organizations could have managed their partnership better in several respects:
First, FDC staff said that broader participation in the design of the program would have 
created wider knowledge within the Foundation about the purpose, resources and
parameters of the program, and thus greater buy-in. This process would have grounded 
the program better within FDC, and thus laid a stronger basis for continuing it during the 
nearly eighteen months in 2003 – 04 when FDC lacked a fulltime permanent Executive 
Director. Conversations with FDC staff revealed some perception that Synergos had
brought a standard package to FDC as a proposal, rather than working out a response to 
the particular circumstances of FDC. Yet FDC staff also acknowledged that the
Foundation could have been more rigorous in analyzing its situation, issues, and
priorities, the possible responses, and Synergos’ strategies. Doing so in a more public
fashion within the Foundation would have allowed closer scrutiny and better knowledge
of the FDC/Synergos program, and of Synergos’ approach. 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 15
FDC staff described the Synergos/FDC program as based within senior management of
the Foundation, at its strategic and governance levels. Hence, when opportunities arose
for staff training activities (exchanges, visits, and so on), these were welcomed, but they
were not understood as part of a broader process or program. FDC staff saw the
partnership as a link between the upper levels of the two organizations, rather than as an
integral to the daily life of the Foundation. 
The parties’ close history may have influenced the design and negotiation of the program. 
FDC staff, reflecting on the moment, said that good friends had offered resources, and
that FDC wanted support in its own development. The program seemed an obvious thing 
to do. 
The parties could address this issue of understanding and engagement in the future by
encouraging wider participation in the design and management of the program. For
example:
· A small working group (perhaps three or four people from the two organizations) 
could draft the elements of a program: diagnostic, objectives, roles, methods,
activities, budget.
· This could be presented to a larger “users’ group”, comprising people from both
organizations who would be involved in its implementation—program staff, 
managers, fundraisers, Board members, possibly clients or friends from other
Mozambican organizations as well.
· Advice from the larger group could be built into the final design of the program by
the working group.
· From time to time, as the program unfolds, the larger group could be reconvened to 
review and adjust it.
As approach of this kind would help to compensate for the differences in size between
the two organizations. Synergos may have one or two staff working regularly on the
program, which may involve several staff within FDC. Practically, it would thus be
difficult for Synergos staff to stay in touch with all the FDC staff involved. Establishing
a “users’ group” would create a forum for the program, and make it public knowledge
and property within the Foundation. Such an approach of course implies that senior FDC 
management are comfortable with a more open and participatory style of program
management. This issue goes beyond Synergos’ mandate as an historic friend and
supporter. Nevertheless, the observation by FDC staff that the program has been lodged 
at the strategic and governance levels of the organization signals their awareness of the
limitations of past practice, one that can thus reasonably be introduced into the
negotiations about future co-operation.
Second, the program budget should be a key part of this more collective design and
management process. FDC staff said they did not know the size and composition of the 
Synergos/FDC program budget, nor its parameters—what was an allowable expense, and 
what was not. The budget for the program did not pass through FDC’s books, its
administration being in Synergos’ hands. Synergos thus determined what could be
funded or not—a role that created some discomfort for both organizations, for it
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 16
effectively placed Synergos in the position of a donor. A different approach in the future 
would strive for more transparency by including finances (available and required) in the
design process described above. Secondly, an annual joint planning and budgeting
session would maintain joint knowledge and responsibility for the resources. At issue
here is more than transparency within a partnership, however. The recommendation in
section 3.3.1 (p. 12) on linking budgets to program objectives is also relevant.
Thirdly, it is recommended that any future co-operation include an accord. A contract 
between two organizations is no guarantee of performance: this partnership included an
MOU. If people are not fully engaged in a joint enterprise, an accord will not make them 
so. Conversely, if they are strongly committed to a partnership, they may not need an
accord. An accord can be useful when there is staff turnover in either or both partner 
organizations. This was the case for both FDC and Synergos during the period of the 
USAID Matching Grant. An accord can also make the rationale and planned operations 
of a program public knowledge within the organizations. A contract based on a more
participatory process could be a real asset in maintaining or adjusting directions or
methods of work, checking roles and responsibilities, and resolving disputes. One
respondent suggested, finally, that organizations like Synergos and FDC, interacting at
both Board and staff levels, may find it useful to create an accord which includes both
umbrella statements of values, intent and principle, and more operational guidelines for
specific joint initiatives. 
FDC has an opportunity here. Several staff members said they felt their Foundation had 
matured considerably since Synergos first helped to create it; and, while they would like 
to continue to work with Synergos, they would like to redefine the relationship. An
obvious first step would be to draft a new accord as a basis for this re-negotiation.
Finally, perhaps as a cumulative result of the processes listed, the ownership of the
program appears to have been uneven. It was narrowly based within FDC—not enough 
staff knew enough about it, or had the necessary mandate, to move it forward. FDC staff 
also referred to “the Synergos program”, rather than to (for example) “our program with
Synergos”. Staff in both organizations noted that at different times in the years 2002–
2005, Synergos wanted to move the program forward, and tried to press FDC to do so, 
but the Foundation had “other priorities”. There appear to have been mismatched
expectations about what was possible or desirable at any given time. Respondents in
FDC acknowledged that Synergos felt some frustration about the slow implementation of
the program, but also said that the pacing of the program had to suit FDC’s
circumstances. In a related vein, both organizations felt pressure from Synergos’ contract 
with USAID. Staff in both organizations said they felt they were not wholly in control of
the program, or of the process between the two organizations. Both felt a pressure to 
deliver on “The Plan”, an ambitious list of activities scheduled in the agreement with
USAID.15
 
15 The July 2003 DIP workplan, for example, runs to ten pages.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 17
Indicators of achievement:
Following is a summary of progress against the two indicators for Objective #2:
Indicator B/line EOP 
Target
EOP 
Actual
Notes
(1) # and % of Synergos/ 
FDC annual workplan 
items completed
No 
data
80% n/a Target not reached. (See discussion of Objs 
1 & 3.) Spotty documentary record of annual 
joint workplans: Evaluator received ten-page 
plan (2003), & Renewed Action Plan for 
2005, drafted by senior FDC staff & 
Synergos’ staff in Feb. 2005
(2) # of donors supporting 
FDC/ Synergos capacity￾building program
1 3
(300% 
incr.)
4 Target exceeded; 400% increase over base 
figure.
There is a problem with the first (workplan) indicator. This one shows the necessity of
justifying indicators by explaining how they measure an objective. The percentage of
workplan items completed does not signal a stronger partnership between the two
organizations. It may be an indicator of the feasibility of the workplan, or of institutional
capacity (especially within FDC) to carry out workplans, or of Synergos’ capacity to
identify the right resources for FDC’s development, and to ensure they are available
when needed. All of these may be useful things for the parties to know, but they say little 
about partnership. A better indicator of institutional co-operation and of common
purpose and understanding (i.e., of “partnership”) would be, for example, “three-year and 
annual workplans and budgets jointly constructed and implemented to the satisfaction of
both parties”. The latter phrase highlights the quality of the relationship between the
parties, which is the essence of this objective.
The second (financial) indicator offers useful information about the program, but signals 
Synergos’ fundraising abilities, rather than the quality of the FDC/Synergos partnership.
In a related vein, finally, without more clarity in the objective about the substance or
profile of “a stronger partnership” between the two organizations, it is hard to design
valid indicators.
3.3.3 Assessing Objectives: #1, building the capacity and resources of FDC as a 
strategic grantmaking foundation.
This objective goes to the heart of the capacity development agenda of the Mozambique 
program, centred on FDC’s institutional development as a grantmaking foundation. 
Influencing factors:
Several institutional forces influenced the partners’ pursuit of their main objective.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 18
(1) A foundation? Or a hybrid? First, FDC’s organizational reality is not as
unambiguous as the objective suggests. It is true that from its inception in 1994, FDC’s 
declared intention has been to establish itself as a grantmaking foundation. This purpose 
lay behind its progenitor, the ADC, and reflected the thinking and approach of the
presidents of Synergos and FDC. The challenges of Mozambican development, however, 
required that FDC establish an organizational presence and profile different from that of a 
grantmaking foundation. The organization has always been part foundation and part
operational NGO active in social development at the community level. This hybrid
character reflects a deliberate choice made in the early 1990s to respond to the demand 
and need for healthcare and educational services in Mozambican communities, and to the 
fact that there were few Mozambican NGOs active in the field at the time. FDC’s own
operational role increased dramatically in 2000 and 2001, as it played a major part in the 
emergency response to the disaster of the floods in the country’s river valleys.16 It
continued an operational role after the immediate emergency, contributing to
rehabilitation among the communities who had to rebuild, and the projects established 
then are only now winding down. At the same time, USAID funded FDC to carry out a 
large ($11 million) program on HIV/AIDS between 2001 and 2004. When the USAID
Matching Grant program began, therefore, FDC’s actual profile, and the work for which
it was known—its centre of gravity, as it were—was that of a social-development NGO 
rather than a grantmaking foundation.
In retrospect, therefore, the objective of strengthening FDC “as a grantmaking
foundation” was premature, inadequately reflecting its dual personality, which was the
real starting-point for the program. A more realistic objective may have been to
strengthen the grantmaking function within the organization. FDC staff say that now, in
2005, FDC is closer to becoming a grantmaking foundation than it was in the aftermath
of the emergency, that the Board is committed to making FDC a grantmaking foundation, 
and that the Executive Director has the mandate to do so.17 The issue may be striking a 
balance between a history and public profile which include FDC’s presence as an
operational NGO, and its stated intent to be a grantmaking foundation, sustained by its
own endowment and by funds raised from supporters outside Mozambique. Certainly
some staff argued that FDC should seek an intermediate path for its own strategic
development, one that recognizes both aspects of its history and culture.
In a related vein, this hybrid quality poses a friendly challenge to Synergos in its work
with FDC. Following the observation in section 3.3.1 (p. 11) above, the Institute should 
surely examine its underlying premise of the relevance of “the” foundation model in
Mozambique.
(2) Executive turnover: Secondly, a year after Synergos and USAID signed the
contract, FDC’s Executive Director, who had planned and negotiated the program with
Synergos, resigned. Replacing him proved to be a long process, with the new ED only
 
16 FDC raised US$3.6 million for emergency relief.
17 These comments were made in early September, and the ED resigned at the end of October. The 
questions of strategic direction, and of FDC’s status as a grantmaking foundation or a hybrid, remain.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 19
taking on fulltime responsibility at the end of 2004. As a result, FDC lacked a fulltime 
permanent ED for nearly 18 months (August 2003 to December 2004) in the middle of
the grant period. This meant that, although a Management Committee was established to 
continue operations, there was no senior executive in place with a mandate to implement 
programs such as the one supported by Synergos. The effect of this hiatus—described by 
some as a “leadership vacuum”—was surely exacerbated by the limited breadth and
depth of understanding and buy-in for the Synergos/FDC program, as described in
section on the partnership objective, 3.3.2 (p. 14) above. In this period, FDC staff
described a pattern by which Synergos would make suggestions on activities to be
undertaken—the initiative appeared to be out of FDC’s hands.18
(3) An ambitious OD program: A third factor complicating the process is the scale 
of the organizational development agenda itself. The objective centres on consolidating
FDC as a grantmaking foundation. The related indicators highlight the core issue of
financial sustainability, and strategies to establish and expand the assets of a foundation. 
They include: creating an operating framework for managing grants and donor relations;
implementing an integrated fundraising and endowment-building strategy; and using this
strategy to increase FDC’s overall financial base. The activities anticipated to realize this 
objective, however, suggest a more comprehensive OD agenda. Activities outlined in the 
DIP include extensive staff development in project management, monitoring and
evaluation, teamwork and work-sharing, and a rationalization of FDC’s operational
activities. There is provision for numerous professional exchanges, oriented to skills
development linked to fundraising, but broader ones as well (such as community
development methodologies and natural resource management). Board development 
figures prominently, as does technical assistance and training related to resource
mobilization and endowment management. Any or all of these may have been useful for 
FDC. Certainly a year-long evaluation of the Foundation’s role, programming strategies 
and operations, co-ordinated by a Senior Fellow from the Philippines in 2001-02, 
highlighted several of these issues, including the importance of FDC clarifying its role as
a grantmaker.19 The point is, however, that together they amount to a very broad and 
multi-faceted program of organizational development, one that goes well beyond the
focus of the objective, certainly beyond the indicators noted, and possibly beyond
Synergos’ mandate and resources as well.
It can of course be argued that any program of financial sustainability has to be broadly
conceived and broadly based, touching on the issues noted here. Several key terms are 
missing from the equation, however. The summary of activities related to this objective, 
first, contains no budget figures matching the scale and quality of resources to the size of
the capacity agenda. More generally, there is no discussion of FDC’s institutional 
readiness for such an undertaking. This omission is critical. One way to address it
would be to ask and answer the question: what conditions need to be in place for the 
 
18 Synergos staff, conversely, felt that without strong mandated leadership within FDC, they could do little 
to move the program forward.
19 “FDC Impact Evaluation,” 2002. This fed into FDC’s strategic-planning process, itself intended to 
generate a Strategic Plan for 2003 – 07 (revised to 2004 – 08). Sandra Libunao, the Senior Fellow, 
followed this Report with a case study of the evaluation, “Have we made a difference?” June, 2003.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 20
projected Synergos/FDC program to work? Several are apparent in retrospect, and even 
if the shape of these could not have been predicted in 2002, some scenario-building could 
have shown their importance and generated strategies to respond to them. Examples
include the necessity of continuity in senior management, committed to the program; the
necessity of broad understanding and buy-in among the Foundation staff that would be
affected by the program; similar understanding and buy-in among Board members; and
more generally, the scale, complexity and duration and hence manageability of the
strategic planning and change project recommended by the 2002 Impact Evaluation. This 
example shows the need for a systematic exploration of risks and enabling assumptions
for the program as a whole, as noted in 3.3.1 (p. 12) above.
(4) A stretch too far? Taking account of these three institutional forces, one has to 
ask: “Could Synergos and FDC deliver on this objective and its indicators in three
years?” The answer must be that in retrospect the program seems far too ambitious. A
different approach—much easier to see with hindsight—might have focused on the
foundation “function” within FDC. Within that, it should have been possible to identify a 
limited number of initiatives that could be well supported financially, with a well￾established team to work on them. A more modest but more solidly based and focused 
agenda may have had a better chance of continuing despite the management turnover
within FDC. 
There is, however, a certain structural tension at work that will influence Synergos’ work 
with FDC (or other such organizations) in circumstances like these. Synergos is a small
NGO with a program budget of modest size. Its total Mozambique program budget (both 
USAID and matching funds) for the 39 months of the grant was just over US$688,000—
some $230,000 per year. Of this amount, just over $496,000, or 72%, is devoted to intra￾Synergos costs for regional and headquarters staff and support. The amount available for 
activities related to the institutional agenda was thus limited, on the order of $68,000 in
2004, for example.20 For FDC, Synergos was but one of many supporters—to be sure, 
one with a close and important history, and one focusing on a strategically important
issue, FDC’s development as a foundation. Yet in 2002, 2003, and 2004, the
Foundation’s total investment in all forms of programming approximated $7.5 million per 
year. The Foundation had a large staff complement, reflecting its operational role.21 It 
was a large and multi-faceted organization that had embarked on a strategic-planning 
(and eventually) a restructuring process which was protracted, complex and—in the
absence of a permanent ED—which moved slowly at best. The tension for Synergos is 
that its program has depended very much on an expeditious and effective process of
organizational change and development within FDC, and hence upon an effective
leadership with the mandate to see through that change. Synergos staff were often
frustrated by the fact that these “other priorities” of FDC so often took precedence over 
its evolution as a grantmaking organization. Yet Synergos could scarcely move the
process along. Its own mandate and its expertise are not in this area, nor does FDC 
 
20 Program resources in that year included $18,700 for consultants, $5,900 for meetings and conferences, 
and $2,600 for publications, a total of $27,200. The travel budget was larger, at $40,950, but this figure 
included staff travel, as well as provision for exchanges or visits by Senior Fellows.
21 Approximately 100 at time of writing.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 21
expect it to play an OD role. Finally, its budget in this instance may have been far too 
limited even if the parties had agreed that Synergos should actively participate in and
support a broader OD agenda.
Indicators of achievement:
The three indicators for Objective 1 turn on FDC’s planning for and movement towards 
financial sustainability. They include the management of grants and donor relations; a 
fundraising and endowment-building strategy; and increased revenues as a result of the 
latter. Following is a summary of progress against these.
Indicator B/line EOP 
Target
EOP 
Actual
Notes
(1) % compliance with 
procedures of an 
integrated FDC grants 
management and donor 
relations framework.
No written
fr/work
Written 
f/wk, 80% 
compliance
Written 
grant 
procedures; 
no donor 
rel’ns f/wk.
Target not met. Partial success: 
FDC codified its de facto procedures 
in 2003 – staff now have guidelines 
for managing grants. Not in use: 
new grants frozen by reduced
program revenue. 
(2) achievement of tasks 
& targets in integrated 
fundraising and 
endowment-bldg strategy.
No 
integrated 
strategy
80% tasks 
& targets 
achieved in 
strategy for 
project 
period.
No 
integrated 
strategy.
Target not met. Limited success: 
parts of a strategy in place – policy 
for investments & legal instrument to 
manage those.
(3) Increase in FDC’s 
overall resource & funding 
base through endowment 
building & fundraising 
campaign.
No 
endowment 
& f/r 
campaign
20% incr in 
FDC’s 
endowment 
& program 
funds & 
pledges
n/a Target not met – no increase in 
FDC’s overall financial base via a 
fundraising and endowment-bldg 
campaign.
Some additional notes are in order on the limited progress against these targets:
· Grants management framework: The 2003 summary of grantmaking procedures 
means that staff now have guidelines for proposal formats, assessment, contracts, and 
reporting. The test will be the application of these procedures within the operations 
of the Foundation. There is no plan for progressively increasing the percentage of 
program funds assigned to grantmaking, and at time of writing new grants have been 
frozen by reductions in program revenue.
· The design and implementation of an integrated fundraising and endowment￾building strategy: The partners can point to limited success because of several 
useful activities which together afford some basis for such a strategy in the future. 
As an example, FDC staff spoke very positively about professional-development 
visits to East and Southeast Asia in 2003, facilitated by Synergos’ Asia regional 
office. These gave the staff involved access to the experience of Asian foundations 
in building and managing endowments. This in turn helped FDC in formulating its 
policy on investments and in setting up the for-profit company that will manage its 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 22
investments to feed its endowment. A broader fundraising strategy (including a 
donor relations framework) to feed the endowment remains to be developed, and 
only in November 2005 did FDC appoint a Director of Fundraising. Other useful 
activities in 2004 and 2005 have included engaging a South African organization to 
train individual staff and to provide workshops with larger staff groups on the central 
place of fundraising within the life of a body such as FDC. The people involved 
received these very positively, and have built upon them to begin assembling a donor 
database, for example. It remains for senior management and the Board of FDC to 
hire a Director of Fundraising and to assign staff to the resource mobilization 
function, if these targets are to be pursued or achieved.
· An increase in FDC’s overall financial base via fundraising and endowment￾building: It follows that this third indicator has not been achieved. This evaluator 
was unable to obtain current information from FDC on its endowment, nor on the 
reduction in program revenues noted in the discussion of grantmaking. 22
FDC staff said that there were two reasons for the lack of movement on these key targets. 
The organization had embarked on a process of redefining its strategic directions in 2003. 
Shortly after doing so, it lost its ED, then spent well over a year finding a replacement
and getting him on seat. Since December 2004, the strategic planning and restructuring
has continued. Acknowledging these changes, it is not clear to this evaluator why FDC 
has taken so long to get to grips with functions as critical as fundraising and endowment￾building. Individual staff members of FDC expressed their frustration and dismay with
the lack of movement. Certainly Synergos staff felt that, as representatives of an external 
organization, they could do little more than promote piecemeal activities of the kind
described—useful in themselves, but not part of an overall process to consolidate the
resource-mobilization function more generally.
3.3.4 Assessing Objectives: #3, Capacity-building with Mozambican CSOs, to
strengthen the technical and financial base for community development by
providing FDC’s capacity-building services.
The observations here echo those of the preceding sections.
An objective more tailored to the capacity assets and priorities of Mozambican CSOs
would be both more specific and more readily understood. The indicators below suggest 
three elements: written fundraising strategies; guidelines for good development practice;
and dialogue among Mozambican companies, FDC and CSOs on corporate citizenship. 
It is not clear, however, whether these are priority components in a capacity development 
agenda, or simply items that seemed feasible within the period of the project grant. 
Certainly the rationale for FDC to invest in promoting capacity among CSOs is clear
 
22 FDC’s overall revenue figures are skewed by the presence of the large USAID-funded HIV/AIDS 
program. The annual expenditure of approximately $7.5 million/yr between 2002 and 2004 reflects the 
influence of more than $3 million/year from that program, hence a significant increase from the total 2001 
figure of $5.12 million. 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 23
enough. As one staff member put it, if FDC is to be a grantmaker, the necessary
complement to its own capacity will be external capacity—i.e., among those
organizations to whom it will make grants. (For this reason, in this program, Objectives 
#1 and #3 are closely complementary.) The same staff member felt, however, that this
objective had the lowest priority of the three. A similar pattern appeared as in the
activities related to FDC’s institutional development. For example: it was agreed that a
useful workshop on resource mobilization with CSOs, held in Maputo late in 2003,
would be replicated in the provinces—but no one in the Foundation made the necessary 
followup decision to make this happen, and the initiative withered.
The longer-term importance of this issue—FDC’s support for capacity development
among Mozambican CSOs—gave rise to an interesting proposal by FDC staff. AS FDC 
and Synergos negotiate a new phase of co-operation, runs the argument, Synergos should 
establish a small team (perhaps two people) with the mandate and skillset to support
organizational development among Mozambican CSOs. It is important that such a
resource be located in Mozambique, with the necessary language skills. There are very
capable South African OD practitioners, but they are not on-the-spot, nor do they usually 
have the required language skills. Such a presence would allow Synergos to offer longer￾term, practical support to CSOs. It is recommended that Synergos investigate this idea. 
FDC staff also acknowledged the value of the Senior Fellows facility, but also looked for 
a continued and longer-term process of dialogue, coaching and accompaniment. 
Indicators of achievement:
The following table summarizes progress against the two indicators (March 2004
Planning Matrix, revised) for this objective:
Indicator B/line EOP Target EOP 
Actual.
Notes
(1) # of Mozambican CSOs who have 
guidelines for good development 
practice
No 
national 
guidelines
Guidelines for 
one nat’l 
umbrella & 10 
major CSOs.
Guidelines 
not in 
place.
Target not met.
(2) # of Mozambican companies in 
structured dialogue & corporate c/ship 
co-operation with FDC.
No 
structured 
dialogue.
10 major 
Mzmbcn 
companies in 
dialogue & co￾operation.
n/a
Target not met. Partial success: survey of 
corporate citizenship led to 2003 paper and 
forum. These helped put the issue onto a 
more public agenda. Good relationships 
have been built, which are likely to be 
productive in longer term.
One additional point should be added to this summary. Within the wider Mozambican
development community, FDC has contributed to a strengthening of individual and
collective capacity among Mozambican CSOs, even though these activities have not been
part of the FDC/Synergos program in the strict sense. Networks such as the Mozambique 
Debt Group, to cite one example, have improved their policy advocacy through FDC’s
financial support, management and policy advice, and cultivation of political space.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 24
In conclusion…
The core theme of our assessment of the Mozambique program can be simply stated: the 
long-established partnership between FDC and Synergos remained cordial during the
period of the USAID grant, but the partners were largely ineffective in moving forward
their main agenda, strengthening FDC as a grantmaking foundation. It may be too much
to speak of immobilisme within FDC, but its protracted process of organizational change 
appears to have imposed real limitations on what it could achieve in its work with
Synergos. The Synergos/FDC program, wideranging in its scope but aimed at FDC’s
financial sustainability and its programming as a grantmaker, depended in the final
analysis on FDC’s desire to make itself into the grantmaking foundation it claimed to
be—or at least to give greater weight to that part of its hybrid character. In the absence 
of sufficient “effective demand” from FDC, and leadership to articulate and realize its
part in a joint undertaking, it is hard to see how more could have been achieved.
Sowing seeds for the future?
During the period of the USAID grant, Synergos and FDC staff organized several initiatives which addressed key 
issues for FDC, and which participants said they valued highly. These activities generated ideas, skills and working 
relationships which are potential assets for both the individuals involved and for FDC as a whole. Realizing this 
potential is the challenge for FDC’s leadership. Some examples:
Resource Mobilization:
· In February 2003, two FDC managers visited foundations in Hong Kong, Thailand and Philippines to study 
fundraising processes and systems. Both brought back tools to use in fundraising and endowment building for 
FDC. A weeklong exchange to South Africa in 2004 and a three-day workshop in Maputo in April 2005 
consolidated staff knowledge of resource mobilization strategies.
· In August 2003, Synergos and FDC convened a two-day workshop for all Foundation staff on fundraising for 
sustainability. Staff responded enthusiastically to the challenge that fundraising was a collective responsibility. 
A July 2005 consultancy with a Synergos Board member underscored the theme of institutional readiness and 
commitment.
Linkages and Exposure:
· Synergos co-ordinated a fundraising tour to New York in May 2005, with Mme Machel and FDC’s Executive 
Director opening conversations with major donors such as the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute.
· In September 2004, an FDC program officer participated in a monthlong triangular exchange in the Cape with 
counterparts from rural development organizations in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
· In March 2004, Synergos, FDC and the CTA, a business association, co-sponsored a forum which launched a 
joint survey on corporate citizenship in Mozambique.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 25
3.4 The Mexico Program
3.4.1 Program Goal and Objectives: 
Synergos’ programming in Mexico supported by the USAID Matching Grant project is
framed in terms similar to the Mozambique and Brazil programs. The overall goal of the 
country program is to strengthen a non-governmental financial and technical resource 
base for development in Mexico, generating models for adaptation in other countries. 23
Three objectives structure the program towards this goal. These address the institutional
development of CEMEFI, the Mexican Centre for Philanthropy, Synergos’ principal
partner in the program; the partnership between CEMEFI and Synergos; and the
resources of individual foundations. The objectives are as follows:
#1 Institutional development for CEMEFI: to increase CEMEFI’s institutional
capacity to deliver, on a sustainable basis, capacity building services to Mexican
foundations, including foundations focusing on health and environment.
#2 The partnership between CEMEFI and Synergos: To strengthen the
Synergos/CEMEFI partnership with the goal of building the financial and technical
resource base for development programs, including those in health and environment.
#3 The resources of individual foundations: To strengthen the financial and
technical resource base for non-profit sector development in Mexico, especially in the
areas of health and the environment, by providing capacity-building services to sixty24
existing and emerging grantmaking foundations.
Each objective has three indicators, summarized in the March 2004 DIP Planning Matrix
(the total of nine reduced from the original eleven in the 2003 DIP.) These are noted in
the commentary below on progress against each objective.
3.4.2 Assessing Objectives: General Observations
(1) Influencing Factors: the context of the program: 
Respondents highlighted several aspects of the context of the program which influenced
the people and organizations involved. From the résumé of their comments, it will be
clear that the program has operated in a complex and challenging environment. It can be 
 
23 DIP, July 2003, p. 24. The USAID-funded program, with its matching grants, became known as the 
Mexico National program. When it began, it was to all intents and purposes the Mexico program. 
Synergos’ programming later included the Border Philanthropy Partnership (from 2002) and a program of 
institutional development with three individual community foundations, funded by the Hewlett Foundation
(from 2005). The phrase “National Program” serves to distinguish among the three initiatives.
24 Reduced to twenty-four in the revised DIP Planning Matrix of March 2004.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 26
argued too that the CF’s consciousness of this environment, and their place in it, is a
signal of their growing sense of collective identity as a movement.25 The dynamics of
that environment are clearer now to the program participants, working with the benefit of
some years of experience and reflection, than they were when the grant began.
At the national level, respondents argued that foundations in Mexico, and community
foundations in particular, are part of the broader process of consolidating democracy—
building democratic institutions and a democratic political culture, and promoting active
citizenship. They saw community foundations as part of civil society in Mexico, with an
opportunity and obligation to contribute to strengthening it. Moreover, civil society’s
place within the democratic project remains far from firm and assured. For this reason, 
international support for Mexican civil society of the kind provided by Synergos—in this 
instance, for community foundations—was vital, now and in the future.
This analysis holds implications for capacity development programming. Respondents
emphasized the centrality of governance; of responsiveness and co-operation between
CFs and their wider community, especially civil society organizations but also business
and government. They also emphasized the critical place of intangibles in these
processes—of confidence and a commitment to social responsibility, civic participation,
and a public voice for people historically excluded from public life. This concept of
capacity is very different from the common preoccupation with skills development in
organizational management, clarity about roles and responsibilities, acquiring policy
influence, and so on. And, as one person put it, “There’s no tool-kit.”
In such circumstances, Synergos has the analytical opportunity and challenge to
substantiate its claim26 that “the foundation model” offers unique advantages to civil
society and development in Mexico: its appropriateness to this context needs to be
explored and demonstrated rather than asserted. To say this is not to argue that
foundations, and CFs in particular, are not relevant. Quite the contrary—Mexicans in the 
CF movement are actively debating and working out what a Mexican community
foundation will be, and Synergos is part of that process.27 The challenge and the
opportunity are—as in Mozambique—to set out the terms of the debate, the conclusions 
and outstanding questions.
 
25 CDRA, a South African development resource centre, argues convincingly from experience that the first 
condition of autonomous organizational development is a sense of identity and one’s place in the wider 
world. See CDRA, “Crossroads: A development reading,” CDRA Annual Report, 1997/98, Cape Town, 
South Africa.
26 DIP, pp. 23-4.
27 A respondent with a Mexican CF put the issue this way: “Mexican Community Foundations are a brand 
new movement in the country. Cultural issues make it hard to gain trust in an institution, so we have to be 
very creative in the way we attract donors, and explain the benefits of investing in our communities through 
us. We are building endowment funds, but it is hard to do so. So we do not operate in the same way as 
American CFs. We have funds but not all of them are permanent. They must be very flexible to meet the 
donor’s needs, and maybe with time they will become permanent funds. We do not operate programs, but 
we have to sometimes be the catalysts for creating programs and to help non profits to do a better job in the 
community.”
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 27
Secondly, the institutional setting is particularly relevant to the program. Although the
program began with a core partnership between CEMEFI and Synergos, one based on
collaboration between the two organizations stretching back to the early 1990’s, there is 
more to the story than this. Within CEMEFI, the growing community foundation
movement found expression in the Community Foundations Group (the CFG), an affinity
group established by CEMEFI and Synergos in 1998-99. Complementing this was the 
CFG Consultative Group, an advisory body set up by Synergos and CEMEFI for this
program.28 In developing the program, Synergos also drew upon the advice of prominent 
individual foundations such as the Vamos Foundation. The program included action both
at the broader national-institutional level, with CEMEFI and the CFG, but also, and
especially in the last year of the program, at the level of individual CFs. In a changing
institutional environment—the growth and development of CFs, and the maturation of the 
CGF within CEMEFI—any support program would face a challenge of ensuring balance 
and co-ordination among its different parts, and effective communication and transparent
decisionmaking among the various institutional actors. This program is no exception.
As the program developed, moreover, its institutional context took on another layer of
complexity. Synergos’ achievements in securing additional program funds for the Border 
Philanthropy Partnership (BPP) and its support for individual CFs via the Hewlett
Foundation significantly expanded the scale of its program in Mexico. Although these
are not part of the Mexico National program, they are derived from Synergos’ experience 
and learning from that program, and comprise both part of Synergos’ profile in Mexico 
and part of the topography of philanthropy in the country. These changes have made the 
institutional stage considerably more crowded, and institutional relationships more
complex. These are also influenced by inter-personal relationships, some positive and
effective, others less so.
The point is not that institutional issues are somehow uniquely complex in Mexico;
rather, that the program has operated in a challenging institutional setting, and the
possibilities and limitations of that should be part of the design of future such initiatives. 
This issue is comparable to one arising in the Mozambique program. Given Synergos’
reliance on a sole (FDC) or primary (CEMEFI) program partner, what conditions need to 
be in place if that partnership is to work well?
(2) Framing the Program Strategy, Objectives and Indicators:
The DIP sets out a clear two-tier program strategy for Synergos. The Institute would
work with the national body, CEMEFI, to enhance its capacity to support its member
foundations, especially CFs, and in a complementary way, would work with individual
foundations on organizational development. Less clear in the program documents is the
relative priority of each tier, either conceptually or in the weight of resources assigned to 
each. Synergos staff made the operating assumption that that working with CEMEFI
would be an effective means of strengthening individual foundations. In the last year of
the program, as we shall see, Synergos changed its emphasis to work more with
 
28 It is made up of five elected representatives of the CFs, CEMEFI’s Executive Director, CEMEFI’s 
Community foundations co-ordinator, and is led by a member of CEMEFI’s board. (DIP, p. 26.)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 28
individual CFs. The point is not that any program strategy should remain unchanged;
rather, that the assumptions about the links between the different parts, and their relative 
priority, should be described and explained, as well the conditions required for both parts 
of the strategy to be effective.
The three objectives thus effectively divide into two, reflecting the two tiers of the
program strategy: strengthening CEMEFI, and strengthening individual foundations. 
Objective Two, strengthening the CEMEFI/Synergos partnership, is valid and a distinct
issue, but is very close to the first objective, and in practice, distinguishing between the
two, or assigning resources to one or the other, becomes very difficult. This second
objective can also be seen as an enabling condition for the others, directly so in the case 
of Objective One, and indirectly in the case of Objective Three. Interviews with
Synergos staff revealed a de facto priority among these, initially weighted to the first
objective, and with more emphasis on the third in the latter stages of the program.
As in the presentation of the Mozambique program, the statements of the program
strategy and objectives for Mexico would be clearer if accompanied by a summary of the 
financial resources attached to the different elements. These should include both the
weights of the respective budgets, and the type of resources used for the program. These 
would include Synergos’ staff time, as well as technical assistance in the form of
consultants and Senior Fellows, and complementary resources like travel and workshops.
We should note as well that as the program developed, Synergos staff narrowed the
objectives. In particular, the program came to focus on community foundations, both in
the work between Synergos and CEMEFI, and in Synergos’ direct engagement with
individual foundations. As the summary at the start of this section shows, the scope of
the program at its outset was broader, directed towards grantmaking foundations. Within 
a year, Synergos narrowed its attention to CFs, although the revised program planning
documents such as the March 2004 DIP Matrix do not reflect this adjustment. This
narrower focus was surely more manageable than the broader approach, but also more in 
line with the origins of the program in the late 1990’s. Synergos staff explained that the 
program arose from discussions with CEMEFI at that time on how best to support
Mexico’s emerging community foundation movement.
In a related vein, the statements of goal and objectives for the program would be clearer 
and more faithful to the program if they expressed the intention to support grantmaking
foundations, and later, community foundations in Mexico. The references to “a financial
and technical support base for development program” are unnecessarily broad.
We should also note here that Objectives One and Three contain iterative processes. In
both instances an analysis of foundations’ capacities, needs and priorities is intended to
lay the basis for a capacity-development program. Setting out these phases as distinct
objectives would tailor these objectives so that they better capture the iterative quality of
the program. In the DIP, these objectives are presented in quite general terms, with little 
substance on what is to be achieved during the program. This approach would have
required Synergos and its partners to adjust the objectives within the program—in effect, 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 29
there would have been two sets, each of shorter duration—but the resulting objectives
would have been more specific about what was to be achieved, and in what period of
time.
Lastly, some general comments can be offered on the indicators in the program, of which
there are three for each objective. In all cases, an explanation of the link between each 
indicator and its objective would provide a useful reality check. As explained in the
commentary on each objective below, the indicators do touch on factors related to the
objective, but these are not central to the objective. Hence, the indicators comprise
oblique rather than direct signals of achievement of objectives. They provide useful
information on the program, but do not express the essence of the objective.
The recommendations that conclude this section are similar to those made for the
Mozambique program (p. 12). It is recommended that for future comparable programs, 
Synergos and its partners ensure that:
· program objectives are tailored to the specific capacity issues and priorities of the
organizations concerned;
· the relationships and priority order among the components of the program strategy,
and the corresponding objectives, are clear;
· resource allocations for each program objective are clear;
· indicators are explained and justified as markers for the program objectives.
3.4.3 Assessing Objectives: #2, strengthening the Synergos/CEMEFI partnership: 
Influencing factors:
As in the commentary on the Mozambique program, we begin the assessment of the
objectives of the Mexico program with #2, strengthening the CEMEFI/Synergos 
partnership. This priority reflects the importance of effective relationships in a capacity￾building program. Two considerations shape the assessment of this objective:
· The collaboration between Synergos and CEMEFI substantially predates this 
program. The two organizations built on an organizational relationship dating from
the early 1990’s, and in interviews for this evaluation, representatives of both
organizations stated their wish to continue working together. (As noted in the general
observations above, several Mexican respondents also emphasized the importance of
maintaining international support and solidarity with Mexican civil society in the
current conjuncture. They cited Synergos as an important international ally.)
· In practice, the scope of this objective has not been limited to the CEMEFI/Synergos 
partnership. It is necessary to consider as well the co-operation between Synergos 
and CFs, both individually and collectively via the CFG. Indeed one of the major
challenges for all the participants in the program has been to strike an effective
balance between these two domains of partnership.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 30
Positive features…
Respondents spoke of several positive aspects of the co-operation between Synergos and 
its Mexican counterparts:
· The long relationship between Synergos and CEMEFI enabled the two bodies to work 
effectively together in the late 1990’s to set up the CFG in response to Mexico’s
growing CF movement. In a similar vein, the history of partnership between the two 
provided a good basis for the Matching-Grant proposal to USAID. The USAID grant 
in turn allowed CEMEFI and Synergos to establish a more systematic basis for their 
co-operation. With the USAID grant under way, Synergos helped CEMEFI to
leverage additional funds from the Inter-American Foundation in 2003 for a two-year 
program managed by CEMEFI to enhance CFs’ endowments. According to
CEMEFI, this initiative created a “good synergy” with the USAID monies, both
resource pools being used by CEMEFI and Synergos in their capacity-building work 
with the CFs. 29 The later summary of achievement against indicators for Objective 
#3, strengthening individual CFs’ endowments, shows these resources were used
effectively.
· The Community Foundations Consultative Group was a useful forum for annual
planning of work to be done within the USAID project. More generally, respondents 
welcomed the approach taken by Synergos staff, bringing the various participants to
the same table to work out program directions, broad resource allocations, and 
specific actions. 
· Mexican respondents mentioned the value of Synergos’ Senior Fellows program as a 
means of access to others’ experience and knowledge. This international presence30
did not diminish the importance of developing a Mexican approach to community 
foundations.
· CF respondents spoke well of Synergos’ readiness to adjust its capacity building
methodologies towards a more customized approach to organizational development,
one that took account of the specific circumstances of the different foundations within 
the network rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. More generally, they
respected and welcomed Synergos’ commitment to strengthening the CF movement,
and the CFG as a particular vehicle for that. Several respondents mentioned the
importance of the independent evaluation of the CFG, which has helped to galvanize 
and strengthen the Group. 31
 
29 To complement the IAF resources for fundraising staff, marketing and outreach, and endowments, 
Synergos committed MN$20,000 to each foundation on a matching-grant basis. The overall sum was 
modest, US$12,619, but it allowed each foundation to plan and finance its own OD activities. (Synergos 
Institute, USAID Grant, “Annual Report for Period June 2003 to June 2004,” July 2004.)
30 Not only international. The Program included two Senior Fellows from the Mexican CF network.
31 Commissioned by Synergos and CEMEFI and undertaken at the end of 2004 and in the first months of 
2005.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 31
…and some difficulties:
Respondents also identified several difficulties in the key relationships in the program,
both within the CEMEFI/Synergos relationship, and arising from Synergos’ decision to
establish closer and more direct programming links with individual CFs. Thus:
· Respondents described a basic imbalance within the core Synergos/CEMEFI
relationship, derived from Synergos’ role as raiser and manager of funds. As the
contracting agency with USAID, Synergos held the purse for the program, and was
responsible for reporting to USAID on the use of the funds. Hence, Synergos was 
often in the position of interpreting USAID regulations and deciding on the
appropriate use of USAID monies. Thus, while both CEMEFI and Synergos were
jointly planning and using the funds in the field, only Synergos was accountable for
them, and held ultimate decision-making power on their use. Synergos staff felt this 
put them in a donor’s role, quite different from their longstanding partnership
relationship. CEMEFI for its part felt excluded from control of core program
resources. Had CEMEFI been able to bring its own financial resources to the
program, this might have redressed the imbalance in some measure. The imbalance
in control of finances thus created a substantial imbalance in the autonomy of each
party and their accountability to each other as nominally equal actors in a joint
program. Despite these imbalances, Synergos and CEMEFI did succeed in planning
their work together for the three-plus years of the USAID grant, and implemented all 
their planned activities.
In any comparable joint undertaking in the future, CEMEFI would want to exercise
some management authority over the finances, and Synergos would want to see
fundraising responsibilities shared and co-ordinated. Potential donors in turn would
have to anticipate direct disbursements to a Southern (in this instance Mexican) non￾governmental entity. There is a precedent for this practice in the IAF grant to
CEMEFI.
· In a related vein, tension arose between CEMEFI and Synergos over the latter’s
decision to work more directly with CFs. By securing funds for the BPP and the
Hewlett-funded institutional development program, Synergos signalled that it was not
working in Mexico exclusively with and through CEMEFI. Within the USAID
program, Synergos allocated a portion of its 2004/05 matching funds to support the
OD plans of individual CFs.32 Synergos staff felt that organizational development for 
and with individual CFs was an effective way of strengthening the foundations and
their network. Synergos saw this approach as a complement to CEMEFI’s national
and representative role, and to the organizational home the Centre provided to the
CFG. And as noted, Synergos and CEMEFI continued with their joint workplan.
Nevertheless, CEMEFI as a national body felt that Synergos should work through its 
channels, to avoid introducing confusion into the network.
 
32 As a complement to the technical work funded by the IAF endowment building program, administered 
by CEMEFI, described above.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 32
· Between the two bodies there seem to have been different, and possibly unexamined, 
expectations about the extent of organizational autonomy and the role to be played by 
Synergos vis-à-vis the foundation movement. It appears that the tension resulting 
from Synergos’ change in programming emphasis was not fully resolved. As a
complicating factor, CFs welcomed Synergos’ more direct engagement and support,
particularly its longer-term accompaniment and tailored approaches to capacity
development. At the same time (i.e., in 2004-05, the last year of the 3-year USAID 
program grant), the CFG was examining its place within CEMEFI, and some CFs
were proposing a more independent body to represent CFs (though one affiliated to
CEMEFI). In this instance, the debates within CEMEFI around the status of the CFG 
intersected with and probably intensified the tension between CEMEFI and Synergos. 
Interpersonal tension was an additional complicating factor, with CEMEFI unhappy
about Synergos financing the work of a technical advisor to the CFs. For their part, 
Synergos staff that the advisor in question is the only resource person available in
Mexico for work of this kind with the CFs.
Indicators of achievement:
The DIP Planning Matrix of March 2004 lists three indicators to show progress against 
Objective #2:
· The number and percentage of Synergos/CEMEFI annual workplan items
accomplished;
· The number and percentage of favourable evaluations of activities implemented by
the Synergos/CEMEFI partnership
· The number of donors supporting Synergos’ capacity-building work for Mexican
foundations.
Synergos staff have provided the following summary of progress against each indicator. 
Each target has been achieved:
Indicator B/line EOP 
Target
EOP Act Notes
(1) # and % of joint 
annual workplans 
completed
none 90% 100% of 4 
workplans, 
2002 – 05.
Synergos & CEMEFI completed all activities 
listed in joint workplans, incl: 
· 3 capacity building workshops a year;
· 1 annual National Conference of Mexican 
Foundations;
· 4 meetings per year of the CFG 
Consultative Group;
· program of professional exchanges (until 
2004) for CF staff and board;
· one professional exchange for CEMEFI 
staff
With the reception of the IAF endowment 
building grant, Synergos and CEMEFI 
expanded their workplan to include technical 
and financial assistance to the 13 foundations 
in this program (2003/04)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 33
(2) # and % of favorable 
evaluations of activities 
implemented by the 
Synergos-CEMEFI 
partnership
No 
data
90% fav￾ourable
Seven 
workshops 
evaluated: 
responses 
were 96% 
favourable
· In 2003 Synergos and CEMEFI 
systematized their process for evaluating 
joint activities and for reviewing those 
evaluations.
· Target exceeded in the seven workshops 
held between Jan/03 and March/05.
(3) # of donors 
supporting Synergos’ 
capacity building work for 
Mexican foundations.
1 5
(500% 
incr)
12
(1,200% 
increase)
Target dramatically exceeded. Previous or 
current donors: Hewlett Foundation, Ford 
Foundation, Mott Foundation, Gonzalo Rio 
Foundation, McCune Foundation, Meadows 
Foundation, Annie E Casey Foundation, 
Houston Endowment, JP Morgan Chase, 
Pfizer Corporation, Inter-American 
Foundation.
These indicators provide useful information about the program as a whole, and it is a very 
positive sign that CEMEFI and Synergos can show solid progress, exceeding each EOP 
target. Synergos’ fundraising achievements are especially notable, for the matching
funds secured made the similar amount of USAID money available for the program. In
addition, revenue secured for the USAID-funded project opened the door to other
programs. As mentioned earlier, Synergos built on this program to leverage funds from
Hewlett Foundation to support the CFs’ institutional development program.
None of these indicators, however, adequately taps the central element of the objective:
the capability of the organizations to work together, and their satisfaction with their
collaboration. The first indicator signals primarily the feasibility of the workplan items;
and indirectly the capability of the two organizations to work together. The second
highlights the relevance of the joint activities for those served by them, and the third,
Synergos’ fundraising capabilities. At issue, however, is the synergy created by the co￾operation of the two organizations, and their commitment to and satisfaction with their
relationship. A well conceived and delivered joint workplan may be a proxy for these
factors. Such a workplan combined with an explicit end-of-year endorsement of the
working relationship, as part of a joint review, would be a better one. It is true that
Synergos and CEMEFI worked well enough together in the program to organize and see 
through annual planning sessions; it is equally true that both parties felt tensions within
the relationship, and had their own dissatisfactions with it. The challenge is to craft an
indicator that expresses the essential elements of the objective—here, mutual satisfaction
with the relationship. This is likely to require a judgment by both parties, hence a
qualitative indicator.
33
In the end, said one respondent, although the partnership between Synergos and CEMEFI 
did not unfold as the program statement envisioned, “both organizations probably found
their niche,” with Synergos focussing its support more directly to community
foundations, and CEMEFI maintaining its position as their national representative.
 
33 Though this would not rule out using, let us say, a numerical scale to show the degree of satisfaction with 
particular aspects of the relationship.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 34
Both organizations, it should be remembered, affirmed in interviews their desire to
continue working together. What that co-operation will look like remains to be
negotiated. In September 2005, Synergos outlined to CEMEFI the services the Institute 
is willing and able to provide to the CF movement, and at time of writing was awaiting
CEMEFI’s response.
3.4.4 Assessing objectives: #1, strengthening CEMEFI’s capacity to deliver 
capacity-building services to Mexican foundations
Some brief history:
The revised DIP (July 2003) explains this objective by noting that historically, CEMEFI
lacked both the personnel and the funds necessary to provide capacity-building services 
to the community foundation sector. Hence, it lacked systematic baseline and diagnostic 
data about the capacities and needs of Mexican foundations. The first programming
objective of the USAID Matching Grant, then, envisaged strengthening this aspect of
CEMEFI’s operations. CEMEFI secured funding from the Mott Foundation which
enabled it to appoint a staffperson dedicated to its Community Foundations Program. A
diagnostic process in 2002 enabled CEMEFI and Synergos to build a joint capacity￾building workplan for 2002/03 with the Consultative Group, and enabled CEMEFI to set 
up a database with profiles of the community foundations. The workplan included four
training workshops focussing on Analysis of the Local Context, Communication and
Social marketing, Local Resource Mobilization, and Evaluation of Impact. It also
included a program of professional exchanges among the Mexican CFs, technical support 
for CEMEFI staff, a conference of Mexican grantmaking institutions, and a system for
monitoring and evaluating the CEMEFI/Synergos activities.
This approach appears to have been well considered, based on the use of diagnostic tools 
and consultation with members of the CFG. The lessons of practice led to some
important modifications, however. Training workshops, the key element in the program, 
were (and are) a commonly used tool in capacity-building programs. Participants
evaluated these workshops, and although the individual sessions were often reviewed
positively, they generated limited overall benefit for the foundations. There was
insufficient followup and continuity between the workshops, and the individuals
participating were not able to integrate what they had learned into the practice of their
organizations. Synergos staff recounted an important lesson: if the participating bodies
(in this case the CFs) do not have their own organizational-development agenda, built on 
experience, motivation and commitment, and guided by an effective leadership,
workshops will likely be one-off events with little developmental impact. Nor did the
workshops adequately reflect and respond to the diversity among the CFs. Some of these 
were a decade old, with established endowments and programs, while others were start￾ups. The needs and assets of each were quite different, and the more established
foundations in particular found the workshop approach was not well suited to their
requirements.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 35
Towards the end of the program year 2003/04, therefore, Synergos adjusted its approach 
to focus more on the second strand of the overall program strategy, i.e., towards more 
direct support to individual foundations. To do this, Synergos used matching funds from
the Hewlett Foundation to finance technical assistance by an experienced consultant (also 
working within the BPP.)34 In doing so, Synergos drew on its experience with a very
different approach to capacity-building used in the BPP. Synergos staff describe this as 
acompanamiento.
35 The approach is based on a long-term engagement by staff or
consultants, in which the parties create and carry out a development plan tailored to the 
circumstances, resources and requirements of each foundation. The approach relies on
coaching in the workplace and on-the-spot joint problemsolving.
Positive Features…
· Respondents in the community foundations affirmed that their network would never
be where it is today without the support of CEMEFI and Synergos, beginning with
the joint initiative to set up the CFG in the late 1990’s, and continuing with the
program of assistance under the USAID grant.
· Staff of both organizations said that they learned a great deal about the concepts and 
practice of capacity development, and in a professional sense, grew together. 
CEMEFI and Synergos were able to work together effectively to secure funds from
the IAF for CEMEFI to work with thirteen CFs to strengthen their endowments and 
their management of grantmaking. This latter program, in place from August 2003,
was effectively merged with the Synergos/CEMEFI initiative to create a more
comprehensive capacity building program. The success in that program probably
helped CEMEFI in securing a US$200,000 grant from Microsoft in 2005, intended to 
support CFs in three states to increase access to information technology and
development appropriate skills and knowledge in this area.
· Synergos’ support (complemented by other funders’ resources) thus made a major
contribution to CEMEFI’s Community Foundations Program, helping the Centre to
set up a systematic program of support for the CFG.
· Relations between the CFG and CEMEFI have not always been smooth—there have 
been differences of opinion over the autonomy of the group, and over capacity￾development strategies and services—but Synergos staff believe they have helped
mediate relations between the two parties. One respondent also argued that the CFG 
has helped CEMEFI by strengthening both its membership and its representative role.
· The CF database on CEMEFI’s website and the baseline data analysis feeding it have 
been regularized. The baseline diagnosis has been shared with each CF, which can
use the assessment for its own OD plan.
· Synergos staff believe, finally, that the Institute has been able to maintain its support
for CEMEFI’s engagement with business. The annual Mexician Grantmakers’
Encounters have included speakers from the corporate as well as the philanthropic
sectors.
 
34 This approach effectively served as a pilot scheme, since the Hewlett Foundation subsequently funded an 
organizational-development program with three CFs.
35 The English word “accompaniment” is also used in development NGO networks. The Portuguese 
acompanhamento is used in Brazil.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 36
…and Points of Difference:
· Over the course of the program, differences emerged between the two organizations
in their approach to capacity-building with the CFs. As noted, Synergos staff
concluded (from consultation with members of the CFG) that the training workshops
which were the core of the first (2002/03) workplan did not significantly improve
organizational capacity among the CFs. Synergos revised its approach to include
more work with individual CFs, but CEMEFI was not in accord with this adjustment. 
In an interview, CEMEFI staff described their approach as one of creating space for 
the CFs to exchange experience and to learn from each other, rather than providing
technical assistance to the foundations. As the commentary below on Objective #3
shows, however, the CFs involved have been positive about the shift in emphasis,
which (because of Synergos’ success in securing funding for the BPP and the Hewlett 
program) has brought developmental benefits to ten community foundations. It is not 
clear whether CEMEFI will buy in to this approach. Respondents noted that the
conversation continues with CEMEFI on the issue.
· Programming roles and strategy are at issue here, perhaps obscured by the tensions in 
the triangular organizational relationship. The question is whether a national
representative body (CEMEFI) can or should provide OD for its members (the CFG) 
wholly or in part. Or, to what extent should it encourage or co-ordinate national and 
international OD specialists to do this work? One respondent wondered whether
CEMEFI really wanted to play this technical role as a provider of capacity-building 
services, and suggested a division of labour would be a more effective way of
working. In this scenario, CEMEFI would play its national representative role, with
Synergos supporting OD services to community foundations. A key factor in
realizing such a scenario will be the ability of the CFG to articulate and negotiate the 
CFs’ capacity development agenda with organizations such as CEMEFI and
Synergos.
Indicators of achievement:
The DIP Planning Matrix lists three indicators for Objective #1:
· The number of Mexican foundations with current profiles in the CEMEFI database
· The number of knowledge resources on the CEMEFI website
· The number of donors supporting CEMEFI’s capacity-building work.
Synergos and CEMEFI have provided information on progress on each of these. The
following table shows that all targets have been met or exceeded:
Indicator B/line EOP Tgt EOP Act Notes
(1) # of foundations with 
current (annual) 
institutional profiles in 
the CEMEFI database.
0 20 19 Target effectively met: All 19 members of the CFG 
have an institutional profile in the CEMEFI d/base. 
CF profiles are part of CEMEFI’s Directory of 
Mexican CFs and are grouped by region. Profiles 
include general information (history, name of the 
Chair of the Board, mission, geographical scope, 
programs), contact information and a link to the CF’s 
website.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 37
(2) # of knowledge 
resources on the 
CEMEFI website
10 40
(400% 
incr.)
Target
exceeded
CEMEFI has these knowledge resources on the CF 
section of its website:
· Description of the nature and purpose of a 
Mexican CF: Brief summary of the emergence 
and trajectory of CFs.
· Section on Basic Concepts for CFs: includes 
“How a CF operates”, “What it means to be a CF 
in Mexico” and roles of a CF.
· Profiles for the 19 CFs in the CFG.
· History of the CF movement in Mexico
· Summaries of the 16 CF workshops conducted by 
Synergos and CEMEFI between Nov 1998 and 
Sept 2005.
· Summaries of the 3 National Conferences of 
Mexican Grantmakers, Nov 2002, 2003 & 2004. 
· Summary of Nov./04 meeting on 
Institutionalization, Transparency and 
Performance of CFs in Mexico.
· Indicators on Institutionalization, Transparency 
and Performance
· Summary of Nov/03 international event 
“Community Foundations in Mexico: A Global 
Dialogue”, convened by Synergos and CEMEFI. 
· News and Events section of the CEMEFI website 
includes 13 national and international news and 
events sections: press releases, opportunities for 
professional learning and exchange and 
resources for institutional development. 
CEMEFI also includes the following in the 
“Philanthropy” section of its website:
· Philanthropy: a new social sector in Mexico
· Awards and recognitions for philanthropic work
· Rights of the donor
CEMEFI’s website also includes a news archive, a 
press room and an annual calendar of events. 
(3) # of donors 
supporting CEMEFI’s 
capacity building work 
for Mexican foundations.
1 3
(300% 
incr.)
3 Target met:
· In 2002, Mott Fndtn was the only donor supporting 
CEMEFI’s CF work, via a grant for the salary of a 
CF program coordinator, travel expenses and 
some funds for activities. Mott grant is being 
renegotiated.
· In 2003, CEMEFI received a 2 year grant from the 
Inter-American Foundation for a demonstration 
project building endowment funds within 13 
Mexican CFs. This was followed by a grant from 
Microsoft in 2005, intended to improve access to 
information technology and to strengthen relevant 
skills.
Once again, this objective needs better indicators. The existing ones present useful
information on the program, and on CEMEFI’s information base in particular. The core 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 38
of the objective, however, is CEMEFI’s capacity to devise and deliver an effective
capacity-development program to and with the members of the CGF. Hence, the
conception and implementation of such a plan, and its subsequent endorsement or
adjustment by the parties, should be the basis of two indicators (to which the current
database indicator would be a contributing activity.) The Planning Matrix offers de facto
recognition of such an approach, noting the activity of creating a capacity development
workplan based on the needs and assets of the sector. Indicators of the kind suggested 
would have captured key processes related to the objective better than the current ones:
the diagnostic/consultation process that generated the first workplan; the assessment of
that by the different actors; and the decision to change the methodology.
3.4.5 Assessing objectives: #3, to strengthen the technical and financial resource 
base for 24 members of the non-profit sector in Mexico.
Progress proclaimed…
In a manner comparable to their insistence on the breadth of learning that has happened 
within the program, respondents emphasized that those involved in the program could
legitimately claim real and significant progress in strengthening Mexico’s community
foundations, individually and as a group.
Some individual CFs cited their own growth in assets, programs, staff, and organizational 
maturity over the period of the program. These are substantial, and noted in the summary 
of achievement against indicators below. These respondents acknowledged that it is not 
easy to isolate the influence of a single organization such as Synergos, though some did 
speak of the benefits of particular program established or assisted by Synergos. 
Adjusting the program strategy to include a more tailored assessment and an OD program 
based on coaching was welcomed by those CFs participating in the new approach. 
Indeed, Synergos was applauded for its readiness to learn and adjust. Other respondents 
highlighted the community foundations’ knowledge of each other, their growth in
numbers (from six to nineteen in a few years), and their increased awareness that they
comprise a network and a movement, one that is also part of a movement beyond
Mexico’s borders. They recognized too the importance of this nascent movement within
wider social processes, arguing that the CFs are part of the development of Mexico’s
democracy.
As might be expected, this development has not been smooth and trouble-free. Described 
by some as akin to a child maturing, it challenges the parents (CEMEFI and Synergos) to 
contend with greater independence of thinking and action by the CFs. CF respondents 
spoke of better strategic thinking within the network, and more diversified leadership and 
better organization within the CGF. They also foresee CEMEFI and Synergos as active
players in the CFG, the former as a representative body, the latter as a support agency. 
At the same time, there are differences within the CFG on issues of independence—on 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 39
how much autonomy from CEMEFI is possible or desirable—and of identity, of what a 
“Mexican community foundation” actually is. Synergos staff saw these debates as part of
the maturation of the CFG, a sign that the foundations are increasingly ready to charge of 
their own development agenda, and to negotiate with supporters like CEMEFI and
Synergos.
…but no shortage of work still to be done:
This growth in confidence and identity will be an important asset for the network,
because it will face a difficult task in sustaining its associational structure, the CFG. Like 
so many formal entities within civil society in the South, the CFG is heavily dependent
on the support of the tax and gift economy of the North, in this instance NGOs like
Synergos, the US-based foundations that have provided matching funds and other grants, 
and (for this program at least) a bilateral agency like USAID. Even with concerted
efforts at local resource mobilization—described by some as imperative—this 
dependence is sure to continue. For Mexican respondents, moreover, seeking and
maintaining international support for the movement is a matter of “small-p” political
solidarity as well as funding for organizations and programs. 
There remains as well a question of balance, of external funds allocated to umbrella or
associational bodies such as CEMEFI or the CFG, or to individual foundations. 
Respondents had quite different perspectives on this issue. Some emphasized the
necessity of building associations on the basis of strong member CFs, and were frustrated 
by what they saw as donors’ emphasis on representative bodies. Others argued the need 
for investment in the movement at both levels.
Leveraging New Funds for Community Philanthropy in Mexico
Working with CEMEFI and with international donors funding, Synergos has used the base
provided by the USAID Matching-Grant program to leverage substantial additional resources for 
community philanthropy in Mexico. Some of these funds have been directed to Synergos’
programming, and have been administered by the Institute. The Hewlett Foundation has
contributed US$ 324,962, and the Mott foundation $ 150,000, a total of US$ 474,962. Synergos 
also assisted CEMEFI in raising US$ 900,000 from two sources in the United States: $700,000 
from the Inter-American Foundation and $200,000 from Microsoft.
These figures are dwarfed by the funds raised for the work of the Border Partnership Program on 
both sides of the US/Mexico border. Synergos and its BPP partners have raised no less that
US$15 million in pooled and unpooled funds, with an additional $3 million committed for 2006
to 2009. Beyond these amounts, Community Foundations in the US and Mexico have raised
another $3 million. The grand total is US$ 21 million.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 40
Indicators of achievement:
A note on the usefulness of the objective:
This objective offers an example of the value of adjusting objectives as the management
of the program unfolds, and also of the need for clear language. This objective addresses 
the second strand of the two-tiered program strategy, strengthening the technical and
financial resources of individual Mexican community foundations. As the original
program strategy included grantmaking foundations other than CF, it would have been
better expressed in terms of “the foundation sector”, rather than the “non-profit sector”. 
It should then have been revised as the program unfolded, to reflect Synergos’ focus on
enhancing the resources of community foundations in particular. Program objectives are
not holy writ. They can be changed, and the readiness of program managers and
participants to revisit and recast original objectives in light of experience may well be a
sign of growing confidence in their own capacity.
Synergos and CEMEFI provided the following summary of performance against the 
indicators for this objective:
Indicator B/line EOP 
Tgt
EOP 
Act
Notes
(1) # and % of Mexican CFs with 
permanent endowments
6 12
(100% 
incr.)
14
(133% 
incr.)
Target exceeded by 33%: All 13 CFs 
supported by IAF-funded program, 
plus one other CF, have achieved 
goal of endowments of MN$300,000.
(2) # and % of Mexican 
foundations that increase their 
grantmaking to Mexican non 
profit organizations by 25%.
0 16 12 Target of number of CFs 75% met: 12 
CFs have increased their grantmaking 
to Mexican non-profit organizations. 
Of these, 11 have increased their 
grantmaking for more than 25%. 4 
increased grantmaking by 90 to 
100%.
(3) # and % of Mexican 
foundations that increase their 
permanent financial endowment 
by USD 75,000
0 8 4 plus 
10
US$ target 50% achieved. Number of 
CFs increasing endowments was 14, 
well above 8. All 13 CFs in the IAF 
program increased endowments 
between minimum of U$30,000 and 
maximum of U$76,000:
· 3 CFs increased endowments from 
U$30,000 to 40,000
· 7 CFs increased endowments from 
U$60,000 to 65,000
· 3 CFs increased endowments from 
U$70,000 to 80,000
· 1 CF increased endowment by 
U$82,800
Data on these indicators are drawn from the community foundations, it should be noted, 
not “Mexican foundations” in general. An adjustment of the language of the indicators to 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 41
fit the objectives more closely would have been in order. Nonetheless, the evidence of
achievement in the financial base of the CFs is very clear.
One final note on indicators: A future program would benefit by including indicators that 
tap the important intangibles in a process such as this. Respondents’ comments
emphasised the Cfs’ growing sense of collective identity, their knowledge of themselves, 
their confidence and their ability to take decisions for their movement and represent
themselves. These qualities are not so easy to measure as changes in endowments, but it 
may well be the change in attitude that produces the change in material assets.
In conclusion…
The participants in the Mexico program can point to substantial progress achieved in the 
period of the USAID grant, its resources significantly augmented by others that Synergos 
and CEMEFI secured. Individually and collectively, the CFs are stronger than they were 
three years ago, although they would say they still face a difficult road ahead. CEMEFI 
is more effective in providing support to the CFG than it was when the program began. 
As an external support organization, Synergos has a better understanding of which
capacity-building methodologies are most effective in this context. There are outstanding
questions to be resolved within the web of organizational relationships, as noted. An
agreement on roles and the related division of labour between CEMEFI and Synergos,
including the parties’ place within the CFG, would be a real asset in their future co￾operation. 
3.5 The Brazil Program
3.5.1 Program Goal and Objectives, and the Thinking behind the Program:
In the revised DIP, Synergos sets out the goal and objectives of the program and the
thinking behind the program. The indicators noted here appear in the DIP Planning
Matrix of March 2004. Together, these describe the point of departure for the program 
and provide a reference point for its evolution over the period of the USAID grant.
The goal of the program is to strengthen a non-governmental financial and technical 
resource base for development in Brazil, especially in the areas of children and youth, 
environment and health, by providing capacity-building services to 30 existing and 
emerging grantmaking organizations, disseminating knowledge about the sector, and 
stimulating leadership by consolidating model grantmaking organizations.
The three objectives for the program are:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 42
#1 To strengthen the Synergos/GIFE partnership as a means of building GIFE’s
capacity to serve its member base, including organizations working in the area of
children and youth, health and environment.36
There are two related indicators:
· the number of joint capacity-building services adopted by GIFE/Synergos for GIFE
members; and
· the number of GIFE members.
#2 To strengthen the technical and financial resource base for non-profit sector
development in Brazil including the areas of children and youth, health and
environment, by providing capacity-building services to 30 existing and emerging
grantmaking organizations.37
There are again two related indicators:
· an increase in the number of foundation professionals trained in new skills of
foundation management; and
· an increase in the grantmaking budgets of five key Brazilian grantmaking
foundations: Brazil Foundation; Desiderata Foundation; Angela Borba Women’s
Fund; The Boticário Foundation; and FIRJAN.38
#3 To strengthen two model grantmaking organizations, Abrinq and Instituto Rio, to
promote effective grantmaking leadership in the emerging philanthropic sector.39
 
Indicators here include: 
· an increase in the number of donors supporting Instituto Rio; 
· an increase in its yearly grantmaking to non-profits; and 
· an increase in the size of its operating budget. 
Indicators related to Abrinq are:
· An increase in the size of Abrinq’s endowment.
· The percentage of Abrinq’s organizational support budget spent on grantmaking.
 
36 GIFE is a non-profit association of organizations (foundations, institutes and enterprises) grounded in the 
business community. It promotes private social investment, defined as “the voluntary giving of private 
funds in a planned, monitored and systematic manner for social projects of public interest”. Focusing on 
action to counter Brazil´s social inequalities, its strategic objective is to influence public policy “by means 
of partnerships and the sharing of ideas, actions and experiences with the State and other civil society 
organizations.” (www.gife.org.br ; accessed Nov 30, 2005.)
37 The target of 30 was reduced to 24 in the March 2004 Planning Matrix.
38 This indicator was added in the March 2004 Planning Matrix, reflecting Synergos’ expansion of its 
working relationships beyond the main partners. FIRJAN is the Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro. 
Its Social Responsibility Nucleus administers funds for social investment.
39 Instituto Rio is “a community foundation and a public-interest civil society organization. It is both a 
strategy for local development and a mechanism for private social investment.” (www.institutorio.org.br; 
accessed Nov 30, 2005.) Abrinq Foundation, established in 1990, is “a non-profit organization, ‘a friend of 
children’,” whose mission is “to promote the defence of rights and the exercise of citizenship for children 
and youth.” (www.fundabrinq.org.br; accessed Nov 30, 2005.)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 43
Synergos’ working relationships with its three main partner organizations predated the
USAID grant. These objectives were thus based on consultations with each, as well as on 
research with GIFE into the Brazilian grantmaking sector more generally.40 The
objectives reflect Synergos’ judgment that Brazilian philanthropic organizations needed
and were ready for technical assistance to strengthen key institutional processes relevant
to grantmaking to civil society organizations, particularly those active on social 
development within communities. These institutional functions included fundraising and
resource mobilization, endowment building, communications and marketing, governance,
and program design and management. In addition, Synergos hoped to influence the 
broader climate for grantmaking, and particularly for investment in community
organizations, by supporting conferences, applied research and case studies.
3.5.2 Assessing Objectives: The Program in the Brazilian Context: 
With hindsight, Synergos staff could say that “the logic was clear, but didn’t fit the
reality.” Several key assumptions that seemed plausible when the program was
conceived in 2000, proved to be flawed. As noted, Synergos had worked with GIFE and 
its members to survey the environment of the program, particularly the scale of
grantmaking in Brazil, as well as the country’s philanthropic sector more generally. In
practice, it became evident that Brazilian foundations (mostly corporate entities) had
limited interest in grantmaking to support community-level CSOs, nor in related
functions like endowment development and management. In retrospect, it appeared that
the initial analysis over-estimated the grantmaking function within the philanthropic
sector, as well as the demand for Synergos’ related services. Even the term
“philanthropy” had little currency, being associated historically with charitable social
assistance by the church, and more recently tainted by scandal in philanthropic
organizations in the early 1990’s. What existed, following a concerted social initiative in
Brazil in the late 1990’s, was some knowledge of and action on corporate social
responsibility, with businesses setting up their own foundations for investing in social
development—essentially, their own NGOs.41 Activity of this kind is described as
“private social investment”. As noted, this is integral to GIFE’s mandate. According to 
respondents, there was, and remains, a sizeable gap between such corporate activity in the 
social sector, and community-based civil society organizations.42 In these circumstances, 
a technical assistance program to promote grantmaking foundations was in retrospect
premature. More generally, Synergos’ working relations with the key partner
organizations, although of some years’ standing, needed more work to build the
familiarity and mutual confidence that would sustain a program of institutional
 
40 DIP, pp. 13-14. The research included a National Study of Brazilian Grantmaking Foundations.
41 The resources involved are considerable. A respondent estimated that the yearly budgets of GIFE 
members for such activity amounted to tens of millions of Reais.
42 There are exceptions. Synergos works closely with The Boticário Foundation, for example, an 
independent grantmaking organization active on environmental issues. The Foundation was originally 
established by the business of the same name.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 44
development. In the judgment of Synergos’ staff, these relationships were not well
enough developed to allow effective planning and joint action, and particularly to set the 
stage for any movement on a different approach to philanthropy.
What was required, and what happened, was a detailed talking-through of relationships 
between Synergos and its counterparts. Synergos staff made the decision first to
consolidate the core relationships, and later to develop a plan for work together. In the 
process, Synergos has acquired a more complete and nuanced understanding of the
philanthropic environment in Brazil, and of the depth and breadth of interest in
grantmaking to support civil society and community development.
In effect, Synergos staff have re-cast the program around two axes to respond to the
context. We have to take account of this redefinition in assessing the objectives of the
Brazil program:
· First, in concert with its partners, Synergos has sought to influence the Brazilian
discourse on philanthropy, both among the GIFE membership and more widely
within business, civil society and the public sector. Here, the key concepts include
community foundations and grantmaking; mobilizing local financial resources from
individuals and families, not only corporations; building endowments; and social
investment in civil society and the broader process of social transformation.
· Secondly, Synergos has provided practical support to the OD agendas of a diverse
group of partners. The Institute has extended the reach of the program by choosing to 
work with organizations interested in the principles and practices of foundations as
vehicles for investment in social change, whether or not these are part of its
conventional niche of grantmaking organizations. Hence, Synergos’ counterparts
have included organizations like Instituto Rio, Brazil’s first community foundation;
GIFE, a representative and advocacy body dedicated to improving philanthropy in
Brazil; NGOs like Renascer which are interested in building endowments; and an
emergent network of grantmaking organizations that includes entities like the Angela
Borba Women’s Fund as well as grantmaking foundations like Boticário.
The two approaches are not separate, but reinforce each other. Publicizing successful
organizational development—for example, the use of endowments for grantmaking to
support community organizations—will influence the wider debate.
This approach reflects the way Synergos and its counterparts have addressed the core
issue in their work in Brazil: promoting a different understanding and practice of
philanthropy—philanthropy for social change that is civic, rather than corporate or 
clerical43—requires working with diverse organizations that are interested in this
approach. Synergos has been asking, in effect, “Where can we make a difference?”
 
43 This phrase borrows from the title of a forthcoming article in Alliance (published by the Charities Aid 
Foundation, UK), by Synergos and GIFE staff, on “The Future of Philanthropy in Brazil: Neither clerical 
nor corporate.”
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 45
3.5.3 Assessing Objectives: # 1, strengthening the GIFE/Synergos partnership;
and # 2, providing capacity-building services to grantmaking organizations
In practice, Objectives #1 and #2 show considerable overlap:
· GIFE and Synergos have built what both now describe as a solid partnership to
support GIFE’s development as a representative body promoting private social
investment in Brazil.
· Synergos has extended the range of its working partnerships to include other
foundations as well as NGOs and other civil-society organizations interested in
aspects of philanthropy for social change. Not all of these are grantmaking entities, 
although Synergos has helped to create a fledgling network of grantmakers.
· Working with GIFE, its members and these other organizations, Synergos has
organized a variety of capacity-building activities intended to introduce concepts and 
practices in community philanthropy, and to respond to related OD agendas—
resource mobilization, endowment building and management, communications and
marketing, grantmaking program design, and so on.
We now examine these points in more detail, to show how partnerships and the capacity 
development agenda in the program have evolved.
The Synergos/GIFE partnership: Synergos and GIFE began working together in 1997-
98, and in the years before the USAID grant sketched the outlines of their longer-term co￾operation, drafting accords for their work together. Both shared an interest in expanding
and strengthening philanthropy/private social investment in Brazil. GIFE anticipated that
their link to Synergos would offer access to ideas, expertise and international contacts. 
Synergos for its part hoped that GIFE would provide an opportunity to work with
Brazilian organizations to promote grantmaking foundations as a vehicle for investment
in social change. The USAID grant offered both organizations the opportunity to make 
their co-operation more systematic, including regular planning sessions and an evaluation
of their activities.
In the event, the partnership was not a smooth and linear progression. An evaluation of
the relationship, commissioned by both organizations, described its origins in the 1990’s
and assessed its development at two moments, in 2002 and 2004.44 The first attempts at 
an accord were unbalanced, with one party or the other making proposals, rather than the 
two organizations drafting them together. The evaluator described some frustration on
both sides, as expectations, roles and responsibilities lacked clarity. When Synergos
established a Brazil office in mid-2000, staffed by a Brazilian, communication between
the organizations became easier and the relationship more flexible. 
Some of the earlier problems persisted, however. Although the relationship was cordial, 
it lacked a condition critical to an effective partnership—full engagement by both parties. 
Thus, in 2002 the two organizations were able to set out clearly enough the areas where 
 
44 Simone Coelho, IDECA, “Avaliação da Parceria GIFE-Synergos,” January, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 46
they would collaborate—research, case studies and publications to improve the base of
knowledge about philanthropy in Brazil; and capacity-building events in the form of
workshops, round tables, and thematic discussions. They also generated a substantial list 
of related actions to be organized and financed together, focussing in the first instance on
GIFE’s institutional membership, but also aimed at a wider interested public. 
In practice, only a few of these activities materialized. Those that did were valuable, to 
be sure—publications in the form of case studies and practical guides, which described
both grantmaking initiatives such as the Boticário Foundation, and methods of social 
investment.45 Looking back at this period, the evaluator concluded that the partnership
lacked traction, that there was a real tension in the way the parties planned and
implemented the various tasks.46 She saw a residual resistance in GIFE for a plan of
action that was Synergos’; and the Institute for its part felt that GIFE did not make a real 
effort to live up to agreements.47 Acknowledging these difficulties in 2002-3, the two
organizations commissioned the evaluation, using it to review their partnership at the end 
of 2003. This seems to have helped the partnership considerably, making for a more
open relationship and a more realistic planning of joint activities. Staff and governance
changes in 2004 within GIFE brought turbulence but after the changes, easier and more 
effective co-operation between the two bodies.
GIFE’s new executive director is leading a redefinition and repositioning of the
organization as a knowledge and advocacy network to support and promote philanthropy
and private social investment in Brazil. Synergos has used modest amounts of money
strategically to support this transition, and GIFE has praised the Institute for its
commitment and its readiness to use its resources in flexible and appropriate manner—
indeed, contrasting Synergos’ approach with the more rigid procedures of larger donors. 
Examples include:
· Synergos provided (alone among GIFE’s supporters) funds to allow the new Director 
to travel within Brazil and internationally, making the personal and organizational
connections that would be critical to GIFE’s new role and profile as a network. These 
include GIFE’s participation in Co-ordinating Committee of the international
grantmaking network, WINGS; the Director’s appointment as a Synergos Senior
Fellow; and a working link between GIFE and the journal Alliance.
· Synergos provided a modest sum (approximately $10,000) for GIFE and Alliance to 
make a Portuguese version of the journal available online, starting in December 2005. 
As an example of the ease of the current relationship, this step—in discussion for two 
years in the earlier phase of the partnership—was completed in two days’ triangular 
discussion in September 2005. This promises to offer Brazilians access to broader
trends and debates about philanthropy and civil society, as well as policy issues.
Three points stand out here:
· An accord can be a useful means of focusing discussion and establishing a common
reference point for a partnership. 
 
45 Noted in fn. 10, section 3.2, p. 10.
46 Coelho, “Avaliação,” p. 14.
47 This latter point is from an interview with Synergos staff.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 47
· If the parties cannot honestly present, negotiate and agree on the core issues of
expectations, roles and purposes, the accord will be unrealistic at best, pro-forma at 
worst. An independent evaluator/facilitator may be a useful resource in this process.
· Synergos has resources that can be very useful for an organization such as GIFE. 
These include staff knowledge of issues in philanthropy; but more important, staff
can offer access to a global network of ideas and people. This base of knowledge can 
be activated with intelligent, timely, and flexible application of modest sums of
money. Using these resources requires that the Brazilian organization(s) be alert to
their potential.48
Extending Synergos’ Partnerships within the Program: Synergos originally expected 
to work with three principal partners: GIFE, a representative body, and two individual
foundations, Instituto Rio and Abrinq, described as model grantmaking foundations. 
These could be described as fitting within Synergos’ usual niche of grantmaking
foundations and related support or representative bodies. As noted, however, Synergos 
staff felt it necessary to contend with “actually existing philanthropy” in Brazil by going
beyond the original assumptions of the program. Staff sought out organizations with an
active interest in a different type of philanthropy, or in key functions within that, such as 
local resource mobilization and endowment building and management. Thus, the
Institute now has a working relationship with a cluster of diverse organizations. They
include individual foundations such as Boticário, a member of GIFE notable for its
independent status and grantmaking practices; new grantmaking foundations such as
Desiderata and the Brazil Foundation, and a formative community foundation in
Florianópolis; the Social Responsibility Nucleus of FIRJAN, the Federation of Industries 
of Rio de Janeiro; grantmaking bodies like the Angela Borba Women’s Fund, formally an
NGO; and service and advocacy NGOs such as Renascer (active in innovative ways to 
promote children’s health) and IBDD, the Brazilian Institute for the Defence of Disabled 
People’s Rights. These latter organizations are not grantmakers, but are interested in
establishing permanent funds (endowments) as they seek more financial stability and
sustainability.
There is an important programming lesson here. Synergos in Brazil has not been bound 
by its usual niche. Instead, the Institute has sought out and helped to create a small but 
critical mass of leadership within a variety of civil society organizations, a leadership
which is interested to learn about and act on new principles of philanthropy. 
Significantly, GIFE does not see such activity as a threat to its position. On the contrary, 
the director of GIFE sees such organizations as potential allies, and Synergos’ support for 
their work as a valuable experiment in new thinking and practice.
Capacity-Building for a Philanthropy of Social Transformation: Working with GIFE 
and this grouping of interested and like-minded organizations (as well as Instituto Rio
and Abrinq) Synergos has organized a variety of capacity-building initiatives, using that
phrase broadly to include knowledge, motivation, skills and practice. Its purpose has
 
48 It is notable that respondents from other partner organizations, Abrinq Foundation and Instituto Rio, said 
that they had not used Synergos’ resources to their full potential.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 48
been to inform and stimulate interest and debate about different concepts and practices in
philanthropy, and to offer practical support to related OD agendas. In the main, Synergos 
has applied its knowledge resources to this work. It has hosted breakfasts and round
tables and made presentations at GIFE’s conferences, for example, as well as financing
publications such as the case studies noted earlier, and the translation of Alliance. 
Synergos has also supported professional development visits by Brazilians to relevant
organizations in North America, and has engaged Senior Fellows as technical resources
for individual organizations, and for collective discussions on a range of issues, from
governance and Board development to endowment building and management. In some
instances, assistance of this kind was tailored to the specific circumstances of an
organization. Two Fellows assisted the Boticário Foundation with the design of its funds 
for its grantmaking program, for example, and Synergos provided similar assistance to
FIRJAN. At other times, a presentation on endowment-building to GIFE members by a 
Senior Fellow triggered wider interest among other organizations, both NGOs and
grantmakers. This in turn has led these entities to establish plans for endowments. And, 
Synergos has encouraged a formative grantmakers’ association, which held its first
meeting early in 2005.
Respondents among these organizations praised Synergos for its responsiveness and
adaptability, emphasising the importance of a field office that enabled the Institute to stay
in touch with local realities and seizing opportunities when these present themselves. 
While making clear its own interest and the nature of its resources, the Institute has
responded to other organizations’ interests and priorities. Both sides of the programming
equation are important: active interest and leadership among the Brazilian organizations,
and a flexible and timely response by Synergos. The size of the Institute’s budget has
been less important than its timely and flexible use. In the period of the USAID grant, 
Synergos’ operating budget for Brazil has been modest: $73,900 in 2003, $55,000 in
2004, and $69,000 in 2005.49 The actual resource budget is larger, of course: the
application of financial resources requires the imagination and commitment of staff, and
all respondents in Brazilian organizations emphasised that they and Synergos have been
well served in this respect.50
Indicators of Achievement: The indicators of achievement for these two objectives do 
not fit neatly with they way the objectives have been recast, and the activities have played 
out. Nevertheless, Synergos provided the summary information on the following page.
 
49 The operating budget supports conferences, publications, consultants and Senior Fellows, and travel.
50 Synergos staff complement has been augmented by the use of a Brazilian consultant as program assistant 
since 2003.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 49
Objective Indicators B/line EOP Tgt EOP Act Notes
(1) strengthen the 
GIFE/Synergos partnership in 
order to build GIFE’s capacity to 
serve its members 
1.1 Number of joint capacity￾building services provided 
by GIFE/Synergos for 
members
1 12 20 EOP target of exceeded.
NB: Services included publications, workshops, 
breakfasts. Participants included GIFE members & 
other interested organizations.
1.2 Number of GIFE 
members
66 79 83 EOP target exceeded. Synergos believes increase due 
principally to the energy and skill of GIFE’s Director.
(2) strengthen the financial & 
technical base for nonprofits in 
Brazil by providing capacity￾building services to grantmaking 
organizations
2.1 Number of foundation 
professional trained in new 
skills of foundation 
management
0 40 60 EOP target exceeded.
Participants included staff of organizations other than 
grantmaking foundations, e.g. NGOs.
Services (noted above, Obj. #1) included more than 
“skills training”. For many, the first step was exploring 
the idea of community philanthropy.
2.2 Increased grantmaking 
budgets of five Brazilian 
grantmaking organizations:
· Brazil Foundation;
· Desiderata;
· Angela Borba Women’s 
Fund
· The Boticário Foundation
· FIRJAN
(Ind. 
figs.)
$301,000
(aggr.)
$1,115,000 Figures for:
Brazil 
Fndtn: 
$256,000;
Boticário: 
$444,000;
Angela 
Borba: 
$190,000
FIRJAN: 
$130,000
Aggr.:
$1,020,000
EOP totals for four organizations exceed EOP target 
for five. Increases in grantmaking budgets are not 
necessarily due to Synergos’ work. The Institute has 
assisted FIRJAN, Boticário, and Angel Borba Fund, as 
well as SPVS, an NGO based in Curitiba.
Synergos has supported the formation of a 
grantmakers’ network in which all participate, along 
with Instituto Rio. This promises to be a source of 
mutual support and advice for participating 
organizations, as well as a basis for public policy 
advocacy to change the legal environment for family 
and individual giving, and for grantmaking 
organizations.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 50
3.5.4 Assessing Objectives: #3, to strengthen Instituto Rio and the Abrinq
Foundation to provide grantmaking leadership in the philanthropic sector
Situating this Objective within the Evolving Program: As stated, this objective is
misplaced. We have retained it here because it was part of the original proposal, and
because Synergos has indeed committed considerable time and energy to both
organizations, and both have lauded Synergos for its support. Conceptually, it makes
better sense to consider Synergos’ work on this objective as part of its capacity￾development work with Brazilian organizations described in the preceding commentary
on Objective #2. Moreover, in retrospect the objective misrepresents the position of
these two organizations within Brazilian civil society and philanthropy. As the first
example of a community foundation, the experience of Instituto Rio will be very
important for others which will follow its example. To expect it to provide “grantmaking
leadership” is probably unfair, however: Synergos staff said candidly that “it’s a miracle 
to have survived this far.” Abrinq, secondly, is an important organization in Brazil, a
leader in promoting children’s rights and a powerful force in mobilizing resources to do 
so, both from Brazil and elsewhere. It is not really accurate to describe Abrinq as a
grantmaking organization, however; it is at most a hybrid. Of its nine current programs, 
only one is based on grantmaking. Nor, as we will see, has Abrinq invested in
endowment-building as part of its OD and programming strategy. In major respects,
then, its profile differs significantly from the practices Synergos is promoting.
Synergos’ Partnership with Abrinq Foundation: In the DIP and related Planning 
Matrix, Synergos described its work with Abrinq as a two-part program of capacity
building, aimed at Board development and endowment building, with the hope of
effecting a major increase in the size of the Foundation’s endowment, and in the portion
of its budget devoted to grantmaking.51 Synergos noted Abrinq’s evident fundraising
capability (exceeding $1,000,000 a year from local sources alone); but also, the
Foundation’s high operating costs and limited grantmaking activity. A series of
professional exchanges and workshops with staff and Board, using the expertise of Senior 
Fellows, would be the principal tools for this program.
In the event, something quite different happened, described by respondents as a vital
contribution by Synergos to Abrinq’s development, and making exemplary use of the
Institute’s resources—but quite divergent from the proposed program.
Synergos’ program director approached Abrinq with the question, “What can we do for 
you?” This open and flexible stance was much appreciated by the Abrinq staff members 
interviewed, who had all worked closely with Synergos during the grant period. Notably, 
although the DIP spoke of “dozens of meetings” with Abrinq and Instituto Rio shaping
this objective, a respondent who was a senior manager of Abrinq at the time described the 
process as “informal”. Senior staff of the Foundation did participate, along with
 
51 The indicators show a planned increase in the former from $100,00 to $500,00 over the life of the 
project, and in the latter, from 26% to 40%.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 51
members of other organizations, in Synergos’ presentations and round tables described
earlier. Individual staff spoke highly as well of the value of their contacts with NGOs 
and foundations in Asia with similar interests in children’s rights. The critical
interventions in Abrinq’s OD trajectory, however, came from visiting Senior Fellows.
Senior staff at Abrinq had met Nelson Colón, of the Puerto Rico Community Foundation, 
through Senior Fellows’ networks. With Synergos’ Program Director, Abring
management arranged two visits by Sr Colón to Brazil over a six-month period in 2003 
and 2004. At this time, Abrinq was wrestling with problems of growth and direction, and 
respondents spoke of a leadership crisis within the Foundation that accompanied changes
in executive staff and the Board. Sr Colón’s intervention—he worked mainly with senior 
management, but also with the Board—proved instrumental. His presence and questions 
were challenging, and he galvanized Abrinq to redefine its mission and goals for the next 
fifteen years, and to devise and begin implementation of an action plan to realise these. 
In charting directions for the Foundation, the Board decided against a strategy to build its 
endowment. Instead, Abrinq retains an endowment equivalent to a year’s operating
budget, enough to allow the Foundation to close operations if required. In a similar vein, 
grantmaking holds only a limited place in Abrinq’s programming, with only one of its
programs using this mode.
A second intervention by a Senior Fellow enabled Abrinq to strengthen its monitoring
and evaluation capabilities, providing an information base which staff described as
essential for a stronger advocacy role on public policy related to children’s rights. Prof. 
Jose Bernardo Toro, a Colombian sociologist, convened two international seminars in
2002 and 2003 on the subject, in which Abrinq participated together with international 
counterparts. According to respondents, the competency the Foundation acquired has
been a major asset in its public advocacy.
The organizations can point to practical and specific results from their collaboration,
results which according to respondents have significantly strengthened the Foundation. 
These do not fit with the original objective and its related indicators, but they signal an
effective partnership. Respondents from Abrinq emphasized the value of Synergos’
adaptability, its readiness to identify and seize an opportunity and provide the right
resources at the right time—in this instance, the presence and advice of Senior Fellows. 
This stance—opportunism in the best sense, serendipity as program strategy—requires a 
close day-by-day dialogue. According to respondents, this can happen only if Synergos 
has a continuous presence on the ground.
Synergos’ Partnership with Instituto Rio: In the last half of the USAID grant period, 
the partnership with Instituto Rio has been the main program focus for Synergos’ Brazil
co-ordinator, accounting for approximately 40% of her time.52 Instituto Rio is Brazil’s
first community foundation—a second has just been established in Florianópolis—and 
Synergos has played a central role in its survival and consolidation. Synergos staff
 
52 In the first half of the program, the relationships with GIFE and Abrinq accounted for approximately 
60% of her time.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 52
describe it as “our greatest success story” and executive staff and Board members of
Instituto Rio are lavish in their praise of Synergos’ support. 
In this relationship, the stated objective of the program and the related indicators are
reasonably close to the key issue—strengthening Instituto Rio as the first example of a
community foundation, a working example of a different type of philanthropy.53
The origins of Instituto Rio lie in informal discussions in the late 1990’s about 
community philanthropy as a possible response to Rio de Janeiro’s dire social problems, 
discussions in which Synergos participated. The foundation was established in 2000, and 
in the early years of its life has received financial support from international 
foundations.54 This has enabled it to meet its operating costs and establish a
programming presence. The foundation works in a tough neighbourhood, Rio’s West
Zone.55
Instituto Rio’s capacity development agenda is comprehensive. Its challenges, according 
to executive staff and Board members interviewed, include the following:
· Both Board members and staff have been on a steep learning curve in coming to grips 
with the reality of a community foundation, because community philanthropy and
community foundations are a new idea in Brazil.
· The new entity has had to establish its legitimacy with its different publics. Most
critical has been the task of earning the trust and confidence of the communities in the 
West Zone, and key community members, both individuals and organizations. 
Instituto Rio has also had to earn the confidence of its financial supporters, both
people in business networks in Brazil, and institutional supporters such as
international foundations.
· To its credit, the foundation is grappling with very testing questions in the wider
social and institutional environment. What kind of structure, for example, can bring
different actors in the West Zone together, to address problems of social violence? In 
a setting where public services in health, education, transport and security are
inadequate-to-nonexistent, what role can a community foundation play, and how can
such an entity mobilize the necessary resources? In a setting where many people
have no confidence in public institutions, is it possible to build a culture of active
citizenship and responsive institutions from the bottom up? A Board member
emphasized that Instituto Rio has to deal with issues like these—it is, after all, a
vehicle to improve conditions of life in the communities of the West Zone.
· It has been difficult to find good executive staff—Instituto Rio has changed Directors 
three times in three years—partly because the idea of a CF is so new. The Board has 
had difficulty finding the right blend of knowledge, experience, and motivation.
 
53 Although, as noted earlier, it would be unrealistic to expect Intituto Rio, preoccupied with survival 
beyond infancy, to play a wider leadership role by modelling a new approach to philanthropy. This may 
come in time, especially if GIFE succeeds in its current plan to promote wider knowledge of community 
foundations in Brazil.
54 These include the Ford Foundation, the Avina Foundation, and the Inter-American Foundation.
55 Site of the favela Cidade de Deus, which has recently gained international notoriety as the setting of an 
acclaimed film by the same name.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 53
· In these circumstances, building an effective program, including both grantmaking
and capacity-building with community-based organizations in the West Zone, is a
major challenge. The foundation is charting the way forward here—Board and staff
felt they had few examples to draw upon in Brazil. 
Fortunately, Instituto Rio can also draw on real assets to address these issues. 
· It can count among its Board members, people with connections, imagination, energy, 
and conviction on the merits and potential of CFs—and hence, the ability to mobilize 
support for Instituto Rio. (Notwithstanding their candour about their learning curve,
both executive staff and Board members were clear about what CFs can offer:
community participation and a sense of ownership of a local public institution;
financial and organisational support to community organizations; and permanent
funds—an endowment—that can both attract and multiply local resources.) The
strength and operational role of the Board, augmented by Synergos’ presence, has
enabled the foundation to maintain momentum during the changes of executive staff
in the past three years.
· The foundation has made significant progress in establishing its endowment. A large
grant from a benefactor has created the first Community Trust Fund in Brazil.
· The foundation has made a promising start in its programming, with more than
twenty grants to CBOs, a capacity-building program with a focus on management and 
administrative capabilities, and the first stages of a network among these CBOs in
place.
· Synergos has provided ready assistance which has been both strategic and practical. 
The Program Director has been part of a weekly (sometimes daily) dialogue with the 
foundation on its development and future directions. She has introduced new Board 
members to the Instituto who bring a diverse set of skills and experience in
management, planning, and marketing. Synergos has provided access to technical
advice on endowment building and management via Senior Fellows such as John
Davis of the Baton Rouge CF and Nelson Colón of the Puerto Rico CF. Synergos has 
also introduced Instituto Rio to potential international supporters, most recently in a
promising fundraising tour of the U.S. in early November 2005. 
The example of Instituto Rio, and Synergos’ role in its history, merits consideration as a 
case study, because it offers potentially valuable lessons to other CFs which may be
established in Brazil. GIFE, with its interest in exploring the principles and practices of
CFs, would be an obvious sponsor for such a case study. Such documentation is not
without its risks, however. One respondent noted the possibility that self-interested 
politicians could co-opt the idea of the CF. If the idea were hijacked into a discredited 
political process, the results could be catastrophic for any wider dissemination of CF
principles.
Indicators of Achievement
The following table summarizes progress against indicators for this objective:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 54
Indicator B/line EOP 
Target
EOP 
Actual
Notes
(1) # of donors supporting 
Instituto Rio
1 10 
(1,000
% incr.)
6
(600%)
Donor target not met, but value of donations is 
significant, including major grant to IR’s 
endowment. Major potential among int’l 
donors following Nov/05 fundraising tour.
(2) # of grants by Inst. Rio to 
non-profit organizations
1 10
(1,000
% incr.)
23 
(2,300
% incr.)
Target greatly exceeded (2005)
(3) Size of Inst. Rio’s 
operating budget
$30 K $150K $65K Target not met, EOP figure close to original 
mid-term estimate of $75K. One result of 
turnover of executive staff.
(4) Increase in Abringq’s 
endowment
$100K $500K n/a Abrinq chose not to increase its endowment 
beyond requirements of a close-out reserve. 
(5) % of Abrinq budget spent 
on grantmaking
26% 40% n/a Abrinq chose not to follow this programming 
strategy. Currently, one of nine programs is 
based on grantmaking.
To this may be added Brazilians’ testimony on the work of Synergos Senior Fellows, 
summarized in the following textbox:
Contributions by Senior Fellows: 
Senior Fellows have made numerous working visits to Synergos’ counterparts. Brazilian respondents
highlighted contributions that Fellows made to their organizations. Several examples follow. The Fellows’ 
visits were brief, a few days in duration, but brought real benefits to the organizations involved.
· Nelson Colón of the Puerto Rico Community Foundation visited Abrinq Foundation twice, in 2003 and 
2004. He challenged the Foundation to rethink its vision and trajectory. In response, the Foundation set out 
an ambitious vision: by 2020, all of Brazil’s 5000-plus municipalities would have policies and structures in 
place to protect children and their rights.
· John Davis of the Baton Rouge Community Foundation visited Brazil 2004 and 2005. He delivered
workshops on endowment building and management to grantmaking foundations, including Instituto Rio 
and The Boticário Foundation. Several other NGOs and grantmaking organizations heard of his presence 
and asked for another workshop on endowments. These organizations have begun to set up their own 
endowments, investing in their own financial stability and sustainability.
· David Smith (formerly of The Foundation for the Environment, Jamaica) and John Davis helped The 
Boticário Foundation design its Funds and related investment strategies to support its environmental
programming.
· José Bernardo Toro, Dean of the Faculty of Education of Colombia’s Javeriana University convened two 
international seminars on monitoring and evaluation in 2002 and 2003, and worked with Abrinq staff to 
establish an M & E capacity within the Foundation. The Foundation acquired the capability to use 
evaluation to generate the practical knowledge necessary to sustain a program of advocacy for public 
policies that protect children and their rights.
This is high-value programming. A Fellow’s assignment might cost $5000 on average, and bring immediate 
benefits and unexpected spinoffs to the organizations involved. There is an important principle here: the 
Brazilian organizations were ready and able to use the Fellows’ expertise, and Synergos was able to identify the 
right person and to make them available at the right time.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 55
In conclusion…
Synergos’ Brazil program has had to contend with the challenge of finding, creating and 
enlarging space for a different type of philanthropy in Brazil. To do so required 
rethinking some of the original assumptions for the program, effectively reworking its 
original objectives, and going beyond Synergos’ usual pattern of working with 
grantmaking foundations. Synergos has persevered with this approach, and with its 
partners can show progress in defining the principles and practice of “a different type of 
philanthropy”.
3.6 The Headquarters Program, and Related Program Management Issues
Note: This aspect of the program received only limited attention during the evaluation,
which focused on the three country programs described above. A more thorough
assessment of the HQ program would have required a visit to New York, and interviews 
with Synergos managers. Budget constraints precluded this. What follows, then, is a
brief note on HQ management issues to be addressed within the program, Synergos’
response to these, and a résumé of achievement against indicators. We conclude this
section with notes on Synergos’ overall program management. This approach allows a
single summary of Lessons Learned and Recommendations (section 4.0).
3.6.1 Strengthening Synergos’ Headquarters Capacity
The USAID Matching Grant program strategy assumed, appropriately, that a capacity￾development program for and with Southern organizations, implemented by Northern
NGOs, merits investing in the capacity of the latter as well as the former. Accordingly, 
the USAID grant made provision for such a program, directed towards Synergos’
headquarters, to complement the initiatives in the field.
The two objectives for this program, revised for the DIP Planning Matrix of March 2004, 
were as follows:
#1 To provide effective and efficient support to the programs being implemented in
Brazil, Mexico and Mozambique; and
#2 To increase capacity of global programs in HQ to support field staff in delivering
high quality capacity-building services to target foundations.
The distinction between these objectives could be more clearly stated. This reviewer saw 
two purposes for the HQ program: to strengthen Synergos’ program management
systems; and to improve Synergos’ use of its knowledge resources (such as the Senior 
Fellows Program) to enhance the quality of its field programs. Synergos deemed three
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 56
management functions to be especially important: financial administration and reporting;
planning and budgeting; and monitoring and evaluation of programs.
Synergos’ Director of its Strengthening Bridging Organizations program, the “home” of
the USAID grant within the Institute, acknowledged that financial planning and
management had been “a vexing problem” for the Institute. She noted that mid-term 
financial reporting to USAID had been late, the delay being due to technical problems
and incorrect data input, although the Institute’s audits were clean. Field staff for their
part expressed their frustration with HQ’s inability to provide them with prompt and
accurate monthly expenditure and performance-to-budget reports on their programs. 
They noted that this information was often available only three months after the month in
question. Such delays meant that field staff had to maintain their own records as the 
primary information source for budget control. By the end of the project, Synergos’
program manager saw improvements, though field staff still felt the delays were
excessive.
In 2005, Synergos installed a new planning and budgeting system it designed with
assistance from an established consulting firm. This author reviewed the manual for this
system, which is strongly outcomes-oriented, and offers an adequate basis for aligning
activities, program objectives and anticipated results with available financial resources. 
The test will be its use—effective program planning and budgeting can provide a good
base of information for financial reporting, but offers no guarantee.
One observation and two recommendations are offered here:
First, as benchmarks for compiling monthly financial program reports, the following 
are reasonable deadlines. These are based on the author’s program and organizational
management experience with an NGO with a much larger budget and many more field
offices than Synergos. Monthly reports can be completed by the field offices and sent
electronically to HQ within one week of monthend. HQ should in turn be able to provide 
draft composite program expense and performance-to-budget reports to field offices and 
program managers within one month at most, preferably less. 
Secondly, a recommendation follows on the structure of Synergos’ budgets: 
It is recommended that the Institute use a programmatic basis for its budgeting and
financial reporting, rather than the line expenditure categories used for the USAID grant 
and continued in the Institute’s 2006 plan. Doing so would give a truer picture of
Synergos’ intended and actual use of its programming resources. Expenditure categories 
currently include compensation, consultants, sub-grants, meetings, conferences, travel,
publications, operating expenses, and overhead.56 The challenge is to identify the
 
56 In the 2006 Plan, for example, the “Strengthening Bridging Organizations” program (the site of the 
programs supported by the USAID grant and matching funds between 2002 and 2005) has a total budget of 
$5.16 million, this amount allocated against the various line items noted. The program includes activities 
in counties in Central and South America, Southern Africa, and Southeast Asia. From the plan, the reader 
does not know the allocation of resources to these countries, nor to the relevant program objectives. 
Detailed internal budgets for 2003/04 and 2005 provide a country-by-country breakdown, but no more 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 57
Institute’s program resources, and to align these with the relevant sub-programs and their 
objectives. 
As part of that process, it is recommended that Synergos present “compensation” (staff 
costs) as a programming resource and expense. It is evident to this reviewer that
Synergos’ staff are one of its principal programming resources, perhaps the key resource 
for the organization, and its program budgets should reflect this reality. Doing so would 
require staff to track time spent on corporate matters, on office management, and on
programming with partners, but this is not unduly difficult.
A budget constructed in this way would allow Synergos to show how it planned to apply 
its various resources to its programmatic purposes in the countries where it operates, and 
to report on their actual expenditure.
With respect to monitoring and evaluation, finally, Synergos staff acknowledged the 
value of the USAID grant process, in emphasising the need for the Institute to describe its 
expected program outcomes, monitor progress to plan, and evaluate the program as a
whole. The Institute does have a planning and budgeting system which offers a good 
basis for regular monitoring of activities and results, and thus for evaluating programs. 
Adopting program-based budgeting, as recommended above would provide a better basis 
for integrating financial resources with program activities and results. At bottom,
however, the issue is less a matter of format and technique than of organizational culture. 
Synergos’ primary resource is the collective knowledge of its staff and the wider
networks of the Institute, including, notably, its Senior Fellows. The organization has
usefully invested in documenting its work with its Southern partners—examples have
been noted earlier. Program monitoring and evaluation is another, related, tool to help
Synergos generate practical knowledge; expenditure on this function is not a cost but an
investment for the organization. 
Accordingly, it is recommended that Synergos invest at least 2.5% of its programming
budget in evaluation. This is a resource for organizational learning. As a reference point, 
the original budget for this EOP evaluation was US$ 20,000, against a program budget of 
nearly $3 mn (both USAID and matching funds), or 0.67% of the program total.57
3.6.2 Headquarters Program: Indicators of Achievement
Synergos staff provided the following summary of achievements against indicators
related to the objectives in the HQ program. An overall comment should precede and
frame these, however.
 
precise programmatic allocation, the country budgets being assigned to line expenditure items which are 
not grouped by objective.
57 The EOP evaluation was complemented by, and drew upon, evaluations of program components in 
Brazil (the GIFE/Synergos partnership) and Mexico (the effectiveness of the CFG).
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 58
Synergos’ Director of this program sees it in toto as a strategic asset for the organization. 
Beyond the immediate qualities and dynamics of the individual country programs, she
argues that the program as a whole has changed Synergos’ profile:
· In Mexico, the USAID-funded program allowed Synergos to consolidate its work
with the community foundations. Its record with the CFs was critical in enabling
Synergos to take on the management role in the BPP.
· In Brazil, the USAID-funded program enabled Synergos to establish an
organizational presence in the country—an office and a field-based Program Director.
· In all three countries, the program allowed a much more comprehensive approach to 
Synergos’ collaboration with its principal partners.
· In Synergos’ headquarters, the logframe methodology that accompanied the grant has 
made the Institute much more conscious of outcomes, indicators, and the necessity of 
evaluation.
Objective #1: to provide effective and efficient support to the programs being 
implemented in Brazil, Mexico and Mozambique.
Indicator B/line EOP 
Tgt
EOP 
Act
Notes
(1) # and % of Country Programs 
implementing revised monitoring 
and evaluation system
0 10 10 Target met. The new planning, budgeting and 
evaluation framework includes in its M & E a 
performance evaluation system for staff with 
professional goals for each.
(2) % of Synergos staff trained in 
new financial management 
systems
0 34 31 Target 90% met. All HQ staff trained; Synergos 
less successful with 3 overseas staff, because of 
distance.
(3) # of new donors supporting 
Synergos' programs in Brazil, 
Mexico and Mozambique
0 15 19 Target exceeded. Donors include 16 
foundations and three corporations.
(4) # of new GPC members from 
Brazil, Mexico and Mozambique
0 7 9 Target exceeded. 5 new GPC members from 
Brazil, 4 from Mexico.
(5) % of Synergos staff using new, 
improved program planning matrix
0 34 34 Target met, including all overseas staff.
Objective #2: To increase capacity of global HQ programs to support field staff in 
delivering high quality capacity building services to target foundations.
Indicator B/line EOP 
Tgt
EOP 
Act
Notes
(1) # of Senior Fellows 
assignments requested by field 
staff
5/yr 10/yr 11/yr Target met: 3 in Mexico, 8 in Brazil
(2) % of professional exchanges 
based on new planning protocol 
which are rated favourably by 
exchange participants.
n/a 90% 100% All professional exchanges used the revised 
protocol and all were rated favourably. 
(3) % of foundations in which staff 
and leadership report that 
Synergos capacity building service 
improved performance.
n/a 90% 100% The evaluations of Synergos’ capacity building 
services report that the experience was ‘good’ or 
better.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 59
3.6.3 Notes on Synergos’ Program Management
(1) Management Approach:
This program is a capacity development initiative focused primarily on organizational
development for and with Southern organizations—grantmaking foundations, hybrids
with traits of foundations and NGOs, and philanthropic representative/support bodies. 
The vehicles for this work are Synergos’ working relationships with its principal
counterparts in Mozambique, Brazil and Mexico. The stance adopted by Synergos in
managing these relationships matters a lot. The Institute is not a funding body in the
manner of many Northern NGOs or foundations, providing core or program support to its 
counterparts.58 As mentioned in the assessment of the country programs, Synergos’
primary resource for its work is the knowledge it can offer to others—experience, 
expertise, judgment, and contacts in a global philanthropic network. Although its staff
have their own experience with foundation-building and through networks such as the
Senior Fellows, access to a great deal more experience in the field, on the whole the
Institute seems not to have acted as The Expert. To cite an example, a Brazilian
respondent acknowledged that Synergos, “like any of us approaching a community as an
outsider,” had its own biases and ways of seeing and doing things, but nevertheless has
understood and adapted to Brazilian contexts, priorities and interests. Respondents were 
generally positive about Synergos’ approach to its work, even where differences arose
between the parties. 
An organizational dialogue has evolved in the three program countries, with varying
degrees of clarity about agendas, and with different plans of action. (These, and their
results, are noted in the preceding sections.) The experience of the program indicates that 
such a dialogue is greatly facilitated by a continuous presence for Synergos. This enables 
both parties to stay in touch with changing day-by-day circumstances, and to identify and 
take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Such a presence may comprise staff
members, consultants, or both. A continuous presence does not mean that all working
relationships will be equitable, harmonious, and balanced—the multiple roles played by
Synergos vis-à-vis its counterparts have meant imbalances were inevitable. It does allow
for closer monitoring of roles and relationships as these evolve, and should make
renegotiation and adjustments easier. In this respect, it is worth noting that the only 
criticism voiced of the Senior Fellows program was the desire to have the Fellows
maintain their engagement with the host organization over a longer period of time,
thereby encouraging a deeper relationship. Nor does a continuous presence guarantee
that the Southern organizations will make the best possible use of Synergos’ OD
resources—as noted, Brazilian respondents whose organizations enjoyed a good rapport
with Synergos felt they still had some way to go in this respect. Its success, finally,
obviously depends heavily on the qualities and capabilities of the person(s) the in the
office.
 
58 In some instances in the Mexico program, Synergos did provide modest funding to CFs to enable them to 
plan their OD agendas. See fn 30.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 60
In this program, it is very hard to imagine that the process of consolidating organizational
relationships in Brazil, for example, and of reworking the orientation of the country
program, could have been done from afar. Several respondents said that would have been 
impossible. In Mexico, acompanamiento as an approach to organizational development 
has required the regular presence of Synergos’ advisors and (within the BPP) staff. If
Synergos continues with that approach in a growing program, it may well require a
permanent staff presence. In the Mozambique program, this evaluator believes that the
partnership needed a stronger motive force within FDC to move the joint agenda forward; 
it is not obvious that a continuous presence by Synergos in Mozambique would have
significantly changed that dynamic. That said, the suggestion by FDC staff that Synergos 
set up a small OD resource team in Mozambique offers some interesting options. In
particular, with the proper profile of skills and a seed budget, such a presence would
allow attention to the third objective in the program, capacity-building work with
Mozambican CSOs.
(2) Comments on the Detailed Implementation Plan (revised version, July 2003)
There are several points where the DIP could have been stronger. 
Framing the program: defining the goal, strategy, objectives, and indicators 59
There are problems with the way the program is framed in the DIP. Ideally, a sharper 
contextual analysis of the kind recommended would also bring more precision to the
statements of program strategy and objectives. As noted earlier, these are similar for all
three programs, the language being generic rather than specific. This may offer some
benefit of comparability, but for this reviewer it creates the impression of a blueprint￾style approach.60 The commentary on individual country objectives argues that these
would be more useful if they were more specific, and tailored to the circumstances of
individual countries and organizations. Synergos’ programming strategy, moreover,
usually included two components, a focus on umbrella or representative organizations as
well as on specific organizations. In these circumstances, the relative priority of the
different components of the strategy—hence of the objectives of the program—and their 
interconnections, all need to be explained. The objective of building a stronger
partnership, for example, common to all three programs, appears to be an enabling
condition for other objectives.61 That is, progress in defining and implementing a
capacity development agenda is likely to turn on the quality of this core relationship. If
this is so, then aiming “to strengthen the partnership” does not take us very far. The 
 
59 The summary of this issue is based on the author’s assessment of the program objectives and indicators, 
as well as commentary by Synergos staff. 
60 To be fair, Synergos notes in the DIP that its capacity-building initiatives—workshops, consultancies, 
exchanges and fellowship—are tailored to the needs of the counterpart institutions (p. 4). The point is that 
the planning documents wash out this specificity. As noted in the discussion of common issues in the 
program (p. 5), Synergos staff felt pressure from USAID to present the objectives for different country 
programs in comparable terms.
61 This appears to be so for the Mexico and Mozambique programs, where Synergos had a single major 
partner when the program began. The profile of the Brazil program was different in this respect.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 61
substance of a stronger partnership needs to be embedded in the objective, and its
enabling qualities explained.
Similar comments can be offered on the indicators in the program, of which there are
usually three for each objective. In all cases, an explanatory link between each indicator 
and its objective would provide a useful reality check. As explained in the commentary
on the objectives of the different programs, the indicators do touch on factors related to 
the objective, but these are usually not central to the objective. Hence, the indicators 
offer oblique rather than direct signals on the achievement of objectives. They do
provide information about the program, but not about the essence of the objective.
Taking these points together, the program framework requires improvement in its
handling of two basic questions: “What do we want to achieve?” (the “objectives”
question); and “How will we know we’ve done so?” (the “indicators” question.)
(Recommendations on pages 12 and 29 refer.)
Integrating objectives and resources:
The framing of the program, and the DIP as a whole, would also be improved if resource 
allocations accompanied the presentation of objectives. A program-based approach to
budgeting of the kind recommended on p.56, using Synergos’ new planning format,
should allow this. This information, when aligned to results achieved and performance to 
budget, would in turn assist Synergos and its partners (and external evaluators) to assess 
the link between resources and results.
As the DIP and the Planning Matrices are written, they do not allow a reader to answer a 
key question about the design of the program: are the nature and scale of the resources in 
line with the goals, objectives and related activities of the program? 
Because the DIP is a management tool required by USAID, the recommendation is
addressed to USAID as well: it is recommended to Synergos, its Southern partners 
and USAID that in the design of future programs of this kind, program objectives be
linked to resource allocations.
A related comment can be offered on the overall program goal, to strengthen a non￾governmental financial and technical resource base for development in Brazil, Mexico 
and Mozambique, and to generate models for adaptation in other countries. (DIP, p.1) 
This goal statement is unnecessarily anonymous. The program has been directed to
strengthening foundations, grantmaking organizations, and related support and
representative bodies in these three countries, and this orientation should be clearly
stated. To describe the organizations involved as ”a resource base for development”
seems grandiose. If the program succeeds in making such organizations more effective,
they would be useful if modest developmental assets to development work in these
countries. Lastly, the notion of generating models for adaptation elsewhere is not
explained or justified. In practice it has been somewhat misplaced. As noted in the
assessment of the country programs, a question has arisen within the program about the 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 62
definition and development of foundations (and of philanthropy more generally) suited to
the culture and social dynamics of the countries concerned. In sum, a simpler and more 
precise goal statement would have been more in keeping with the reality of the program.
Risks and enabling assumptions:
The DIP as a whole would be stronger, finally, if it included a more comprehensive
assessment of anticipated risks and enabling assumptions for the program, together with
methods of enhancing the latter and mitigating the former. The experience of the
Mozambique program—its dependence on a single partner—generated the earlier
recommendation on this issue (pp.12/13). Because the DIP is a management tool
required by USAID, this recommendation is relevant to USAID as well. It is
recommended that Synergos, its Southern partners and USAID give more
comprehensive and systematic attention to risks and enabling assumptions. This
assessment should flow from the contextual analysis highlighted earlier, and should take
account as well of the dynamics of partnership.
3.7 Cross-Cutting Issues:
Sustainability has been a recurrent sub-text in the entire program. Indeed the logic of
Synergos’ approach would have made a phrase like “Capacity Development for Financial 
Sustainability” a reasonable title for the program. The necessity for and the feasibility of
financial sustainability comprise a key premise of “the foundation approach” within the
rationale for the program (and of “the foundation approaches” in its practice.) Synergos 
convened a workshop on the sustainability theme with FDC staff, for example, which it
later followed with technical assistance from South African consultants intended to detail
both fundraising end endowment management strategies. (As noted, FDC has found it
difficult to take concerted action on these issues.) Within the Mexico and Brazil
programs, several respondents emphasized their need and interest to address problems of
organizational sustainability, particularly financial sustainability. Foundations and NGOs
in Brazil have responded positively to Synergos’ efforts to give them access to others’
experiences via the Senior Fellows program. As noted, most of Synergos’ Southern
partners are likely to rely heavily on sympathetic external supporters for some time to
come. Nor is this a bad thing—Mexican respondents emphasized the importance of
international friendship and solidarity for Mexican civil society in the present political
conjuncture, and organizations like Synergos will continue to offer it.
There is a certain structural tension in the sustainability agenda, however, which we
alluded to in the discussion of the Synergos/FDC relationship. Organizational
sustainability is a much more multi-faceted challenge than financial sustainability, 
important though the latter is. The notes above on the development of Instituto Rio
suggest the breadth and complexity of the issue: earning and maintaining legitimacy in
the eyes of several publics; a capacity for strategic thinking, and for concerted followup 
action; the capability to manage change—particularly, to learn and adapt; a means of
understanding and perhaps influencing the policy environment; the capability to assemble
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 63
the required resources (people and organizational relationships as well as money). For an 
agency like Synergos, the question then becomes how to balance its established expertise 
and profile—community philanthropy for social change, and financial sustainability of
CSOs—with the more holistic requirements of organizational development and
sustainability. Synergos is, moreover, an outside actor, though one with a respected
history and established relationships. The limits of that role become evident in a
relationship such as that between Synergos and FDC. When one partner has difficulty in 
really engaging with what Synergos has to offer on foundation functions and practices,
there is not a great deal that Synergos can do. The programming question then becomes, 
as noted, “Under what conditions can Synergos make a contribution?”
The possibilities of that role, conversely, are evident from the Synergos/Instituto Rio
relationship, where Synergos has been intimately involved in the dialogue on
organizational development broadly understood—though with a particular focus on
financial sustainability. Or, in the case of co-operation between Abrinq and Synergos,
the Brazilian organization, despite internal changes in leadership verging on crisis,
nevertheless had sufficient energy to use Synergos’ assistance productively. (Even 
though its choices on financial sustainability have diverged from Synergos’ assumptions
about appropriate strategies.)
The acompanamiento approach to capacity development points the way forward. It
implies a much closer set of working relationships for Synergos, whether the Institute is 
represented by staff or consultants, and by extension a collaborative/supportive presence
that will go well the boundaries of financial processes, large as these may be. This
orientation does not mean that all Synergos staff need to become OD facilitators; it does 
imply that the Institute’s program staff and managers need to be comfortable with issues 
of OD broadly understood, and knowledgeable about OD practitioners and agendas in the 
countries where they work. It is also worth emphasizing that Synergos’ current practice 
broaches these issues, so that a focus on organizational sustainability is less a departure
from than an extension of current practice. The acompanamiento approach uses a broad 
scope for assessing organizational resources and capacity agendas. The experience of the 
Mexico and Brazil programs seems particularly relevant here.
New Tools and Approaches
Synergos has invested in the development and use of diagnostic tools in its programs,
notably in the Mexico program. These are essential for a capacity-building strategy
based on accompanamiento. They provide a basis for organizational self-definition—
profiling assets, needs and priorities—and for negotiating a contract between the CF (in
this instance) and an OD facilitator. As noted, the tools used in the Mexico program have 
also been helpful for Synergos staff and partner organizations in Ecuador and Zimbabwe. 
Different diagnostic devices have been used, including one developed by Synergos’ staff 
in consultation with Mexican CFs at the beginning of the USAID program, and another
now used in building baseline profiles in the Hewlett-funded program of institutional
development for CFs.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 64
The tools examined in this evaluation (i.e., those from the Mexico program, noted above) 
are well conceived. They examine core functions of a CF—governance, administration
and management, programs and grantmaking, and resource mobilization—and include
indicators for each and questions to elicit the necessary information. In future
evaluations of the Hewlett program and the Border Philanthropy Partnership, it would be 
valuable to assess the usefulness of these tools. If they work well in Mexico, they may be 
useful in other settings, as their use in some of Synergos’ other programs suggests.
Following are this evaluator’s preliminary comments on these tools. These are based on
personal experience and preferences, and on respondents’ observations.
· The utility and effectiveness of these and other tools depend very much on the skill of 
their users. Used for self-profiling, for example, they can be valuable within an
organization if the leadership encourages careful scrutiny and open exchange among
those participating in the process. In the hands of a good OD facilitator, a diagnostic 
tool can open up organizational issues and agendas not readily apparent from the data 
they generate. For example, SAGA, the Southern Africa Grantmakers’ Association,
has used Synergos’ diagnostic tool successfully as a means of opening up discussion
of board development.
· That said, two aspects of organizational life and capacity seem under-played. The
first might be described as issues and relationships in the wider community. This 
issue-area includes questions such as the sources and maintenance of organizational
legitimacy, and the centrality of larger socio-political issues such as citizenship and
the development of a new institutional culture that is more transparent and responsive 
to citizens’ interests. Respondents in both Mexico and Brazil highlighted these
issues. They also reflect this evaluator’s bias—that an essential starting-point for
understanding institutions is the moral basis of its existence and authority. 
Organizational legitimacy is from this perspective a more organic quality than, let us 
say, the interaction between an “organism” and its “external environment”. The
second dimension of organizational dynamics that merits more attention is the
intangibles of capacity and capacity development. These may include a sense of
identity, confidence and self-esteem, and of one’s organizational place in the world; a 
capacity for imagination and strategic thinking, to learn, act and adapt.62
Both of these considerations could be teased out of the diagnostic tools as they now
stand, most obviously from their focus on governance and programming. From this
reviewer’s perspective, however, these should be explicit rather than latent parts of the
analysis of organizational capacity.
“Partnership” is listed as a cross-cutting theme in PVC’s guidelines for evaluation
reports. In this report, we have incorporated comments on partnership into the
 
62 For different treatments of these issues, see CDRA, “Crossroads: A Development Reading,” and John 
Saxby, “COEP: Mobilizing against hunger and for life. An analysis of performance, capacity and change 
in a Brazilian network.” Occasional Paper, ECDPM, Maastricht, Netherlands, 2004.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 65
assessment of the country programs, because program objectives explicitly addressed
Synergos’ partnerships with its Southern counterparts.
For reasons of space, we have deliberately omitted a résumé of the literature on
partnerships for development, and of issues arising from that which would be relevant
here. One obvious question to pursue, for example, would be whether Synergos’
relationships with its Southern counterparts can reasonably be described as
“partnerships”. The word is ubiquitous in the development discourse, applied to
organizational relationships that cover the spectrum from simple co-operation to
organizational mergers; and to “partnerships” among all manner of entities in the spheres
of government, business and civil society. For this reason, the usefulness of the word has 
been challenged by numerous commentators, yet it persists. 63
Two points about the partnership discourse stand out from conversations in this
evaluation. First, none of the respondents seemed troubled by the use of the term,
accepting it as part of the language of organizational relationships. People spoke instead 
of what had worked or not within the partnership, key points in its evolution, and so on. 
One point raised by Simone Coelho’s evaluation of the Synergos/GIFE partnership does
deserve emphasis, however. As we noted on p.8 of this Report, she asserts the
importance of both parties’ full involvement in the design and implementation of joint
action in a partnership. It is clear from the experience of this program that this condition
has been realized unevenly, for different reasons. This observation is not a criticism of
the organizations involved—a partnership with Synergos will be but one of many items
on an organizational agenda, and subject to all sorts of influences. For any entity,
however, gauging the depth of commitment across the table, and adjusting expectations
and actions accordingly, is imperative. As the notes on the various partnerships suggest, 
the longstanding relationships between Synergos and several of the Southern
organizations in the program may have restricted the application of “due diligence”. If
this is so, then the rethinking of some of these historic partnerships, now under way, is 
probably a healthy sign.
 
63 For critical commentary, see “Questioning Partnership: The Reality of Aid and NGO Relationships,” ed. 
Alan Fowler, IDS Bulletin v. 31, 3, July 2000; Charles Abugre, “Partners, Collaborators or Patron-Clients: 
Defining Relationships in the Aid Industry. A Survey of the Issues,” Accra, Ghana: Background paper 
prepared for CIDA/Canadian Partnership Branch, 1999; John Saxby, “Partnership in Question: An issues 
paper,” Hull, Canada: Paper prepared for CIDA/CPB, 1999. A recent statement from the Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (the OECD) shows how the notion has been embraced within the 
development co-operation community: OECD/DAC, High Level Forum, Paris, Feb. 28 – March 2, 2005, 
“Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.” Simone Coelho’s evaluation of the Synergos/GIFE partnerships 
echoes the critics’ sentiment that the word has been used so loosely as to empty it of meaning.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 66
4.0 LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 
Programming and Management
To preface the comments here, we can extend some of the observations made on
Synergos’ approach to managing its programs in Mozambique, Brazil, and Mexico. This 
program has been a capacity-building initiative centred on organizational development,
primarily for and with Southern organizations. The heart of the matter has been an
organizational dialogue and exchange among the principals, often effective, sometimes
less so. If this dialogue is to be productive, it requires the people and organizations
involved to build and maintain quality relationships. Capacity development from this
perspective should have a strong element of reciprocity within it—though this is not to
say that all relationships will thus be harmonious and balanced. From this perspective,
capacity development is not about “delivering services”. A South African practitioner 
described it, accurately if a bit awkwardly, as about “facilitating resourcefulness”.64
Several lessons to be learned stand out from the assessment of the country programs, and 
of Synergos’ management of those. These are summarized here, with the related 
recommendations and the page references for the latter. Much of what follows is not
new, but reinforces what we already know.
(1) The primacy of context: The core issue here is the fit between “the foundation 
model” and the conditions of civil society in Mozambique, Brazil and Mexico. The
challenge for Synergos and its partners is to invest time upfront in a more rigorous
analysis of the context than we now see in the program documents. This contextual
analysis should include the national socio-political context, focusing on civil society, and
the institutional setting of the program. The operational or programmatic context matters 
as well, especially the interplay between partner organizations and the wider communities 
where they work. This is, after all, an OD program directed towards intermediary
organizations, and the link between stronger organizations and benefits for the
community at large must be addressed. In Mexico and Brazil, for example, CFs are seen 
to have a potentially important role in encouraging active citizenship, and in building
democratic institutions and cultures. What does “capacity” look like through that lens?
It is recommended that Synergos and its partners integrate these three aspects of the
context into the rationale for any future program, to create a more detailed and sharper 
setting for the program strategy and objectives. (p. 7) 
In practice, these issues are already on the agenda in all three programs, and all can draw 
on examples noted in the references. The broader task is to make that discussion more 
systematic and comprehensive, and to chart and disseminate its main elements—to record 
and deepen the debates about hybrid organizations, for example, and about national
interpretations of community foundations. This assessment also implies that Synergos
 
64 CDRA, “Crossroads: A Development Reading”.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 67
should widen its conceptual screen, at least beyond what is evident in the program
documents, and immerse itself in the ongoing debates and conjunctural analyses of civil
society and its role in social change. Notions like “civil society” and for that matter
“community” cannot be treated as uncritically, but have to be interrogated, and actors like 
Synergos and its counterparts have an opportunity to do so. In some instances, this may
be only a short step—importing into the organizational discourse, for example, the
themes argued by Jose Bernardo Toro in his essay A construção do público.
65
(2) The response to the setting of the program turns on the quality of the working
relationships between Synergos and its counterparts. Candour and trust are of prime 
importance in negotiating a partnership. Scarcely less important is sufficient
confidence and judgment within the leadership of Southern organizations to harness
Synergos’ resources—primarily knowledge—effectively. An accord can be a useful
reference point in this process, if it expresses the parties’ expectations and agreed roles
faithfully. It is no guarantee of performance, however. Partnerships require a full
engagement by both parties; where this is uneven, effectiveness is compromised.
Synergos is not a large organization, and its staff presence for any country program will
necessarily be small. Working out a partnership with a larger organization in such a way
that the co-operation is accessible, understood, and supported, requires special effort. 
Discussions with FDC in Mozambique suggest that a more participatory process of
program design would have helped to ground a partnership more effectively in the larger 
organization. A task-group approach offers one way of doing so, but also carries a
challenge to the management of the Foundation to work in a less traditional fashion.
(3) Program objectives are most useful when the partners tailor them to their 
institutional and country context, reflecting the specific capacity development issues of
the organizations involved and the related parts of the program strategy. It may be best to 
formulate objectives in an iterative manner, including (for example) a diagnostic exercise
by which OD plans are developed and a followup implementation phase. It follows that 
objectives may be revised as the program unfolds—the ability to recast analysis and
strategy may well be a sign of maturing organizational capacity, and a healthy
relationship among the actors.
In a similar vein, specific rather than generic objectives make the design of indicators
easier. In any case, indicators should be accompanied by an explanation that shows why 
they are an appropriate signal for the objective.
(Recommendations in the text are on pages 12 and 29.)
(4) Capacity-building in this program has been essentially organizational
development—Synergos and its partners are not focusing their efforts on community or
individual capacity, nor on wider enabling policy or cultural environments. Within this
optique, what are some of the key elements of capacity development in this program? 
The following stand out from this report:
 
65 Published this year by (X)Brasil and SENAC/Rio, supported by Synergos.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 68
· The contextual analyses noted above will shape the reading of potential counterparts, 
their assets, needs and priorities. There may thus be quite diverse answers to a
common question such as, “Who do you work with?” In Brazil, there are few
independent grantmaking foundations, and fewer still CFs. There are, however,
NGOs and grantmakers-in-the-making interested in a new philanthropy. For
Synergos, such organizations comprise a new but relevant public, and present an
opportunity to expand the boundaries of its usual niche. A sharper analysis of such
factors in the institutional and community context of the program raises a
complementary question: “Who do these intermediaries work with?” If Synergos’
overall agenda is to support social change to combat poverty and inequity, then a
clearer picture of the chain of actors in that process is essential.
· Do the resources—knowledge, people, contacts, energy and commitment, money—
available fit the partners’ challenges, strategies and objectives? Synergos and its
partners command modest resources, and contend with enormous social problems. 
As always, the question must be asked, “What’s feasible?” The estimate of resources 
is not static, of course—the evident capacity of Synergos and its program partners to 
leverage additional resources shows this. Donors interested in multipliers for their
funds should take note.
· In this program, the practice of acompanamiento in Brazil and Mexico appears to be 
the most promising approach to OD. It is time-and-labour-intensive, requiring
regular dialogue and hence a continuous presence for Synergos. This may take the
form of an office or established consultants. It requires as well (as noted above) a 
capability among Southern organizations to understand and use Synergos’ resources.
· In this latter quality, intangibles remain fundamentally important—an organization’s
sense of its identity and place in the world; confidence in its own values and
competence; its readiness to engage with others, and enough energy and motivation to 
act on its own agenda. Some experienced OD practitioners insist that unless these 
qualities are in place, there is little that an external supporter can usefully do.66
· The logic of acompanamiento, with its emphasis on coaching and a tailored OD
response to the specific circumstances of a community foundation (for example),
pushes Synergos to promote organizational sustainability in its broad sense. The
experience of working with organizations other than grantmaking foundations, if it
continues, will probably have a similar influence on Synergos. All this may mean
some re-tooling—an investment in a greater collective comfort level with the
different currents of OD practice. This may not mean a great departure from current 
practice. As described in earlier sections, the diagnostic tools Synergos is now using
are quite comprehensive, addressing issues of governance, mission and mandate, and 
management and programming capabilities as well as resource mobilization and
investment. Deliberately examining the OD discourse in this way would complement
the widening of Synergos’ conceptual screen to engage with the debates on civil 
society.
· One particular OD challenge presents itself immediately. Synergos works with
intermediary organizations—typically, with foundations active in social development
at the community level. What then is the thread of attribution to understand the
 
66 CDRA, “Crossroads: A Development Reading”.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 69
results of Synergos’ contributions, as these results play out within the wider
community? As one Mozambican put it, there has to be capacity within the
community if an organization like FDC is to work effectively. For Synergos and its 
partners, this means investing in understanding impact—the broader and longer-term 
effects of their OD work beyond their organizational boundaries.67
· Synergos and its program partners have designed and applied diagnostic tools, both in 
this program and elsewhere. These analytical frameworks can be useful for creating
baseline datasets and for monitoring progress against objectives, depending on how
actors use them. The frameworks reviewed in this evaluation would be stronger with
more explicit emphasis on two of the points noted here: the interplay between
organizations like CFs and their wider community; and the centrality of intangibles in
capacity development.
· Capacity development, finally, is about learning, particularly practical learning from,
and to guide, action. Earlier commentary has highlighted the extent of individual and 
organizational learning across the program, often well beyond what was planned. 
Respondents praised the Senior Fellows program as a means of peer-to-peer learning, 
and offered examples of important interventions made by Fellows visiting their own
organizations. Synergos has an established practice of documenting innovation, and
this program presents further opportunities for doing so. There is an opportunity as
well for joint reflection among Synergos and its principal partners in this program,
and it is recommended that Synergos convene its key counterparts to review their 
achievements and difficulties, and to examine future directions. (p.14) Doing so
would both encourage and take advantage of a widespread rethinking of longstanding
partnerships. A collective initiative of this kind would underscore the thread of
reciprocity that has run through respondents’ comments in this evaluation. It would
also challenge the logic of the program documents, which present Synergos as
capacity developer, and Southern organizations as developees. Exchange and mutual
learning probably more accurately describe what has happened, and certainly are
more in keeping with the notion of capacity development as organizational dialogue. 
An investment in organizational learning is not a cost of operating a foundation. For 
a support organization like Synergos, its most valuable long-term contribution may be 
its capacity to assemble the people and money to make such an investment.
(5) Related lessons on Program Management include the following:
· Acompanamiento as a core strategy for capacity development requires a continuous
field presence. Extending this logic, FDC’s suggestion of a small OD resource team
in Mozambique broadens the possible reach of such a strategy to CSOs. 
 
67 This may require lateral thinking, and an example from Brazil may be relevant. Renascer is an NGO that 
has created innovative ways of improving health care for children, by working to improve their families’ 
resources and capabilities. Renascer is tapping Synergos’ knowledge and experience to set up a Trust Fund 
to augment and sustain its revenues. Its challenge for the future may not lie in providing better health care 
for children, however. Despite its record of innovation, Renascer has been unable to interest public 
authorities in piloting its methodologies. Its Trust Fund, when it is established, may finance advocacy and 
policy research to influence the wider institutional environment. In any case, assessing impact is not 
foreign territory for Synergos. The discussion of the Mozambique program noted the evaluation of impact 
undertaken by Sandra Libunao, a Senior Fellow working with FDC.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 70
· A budget based on programs and their components and objectives rather than line
expenses would allow Synergos to articulate and assess the link between its capacity￾development objectives and its resources. As per the recommendation on p.56, these 
resources should be understood to include staff time, perhaps the key programming
resource for Synergos.
5.0 CONCLUSION:
We can conclude this Report by offering answers to three questions.
Was the grant effective? The answer here is “yes”, with some qualifiers. The
programming supported by the USAID grant and by the independent donors’ matching
funds was certainly effective in Brazil and Mexico. The résumé of progress against
objectives (and related indicators) provided in the preceding sections makes this clear. 
There are some qualifiers to be entered. In the Mexico program, there remain some
unresolved issues in the principal partnership, but these are not immobilizing, nor have
they compromised the effectiveness of the support provided to the CFG. In Brazil, the 
scope of the current program is relatively small, but its potential reach is substantial. 
Synergos and its counterparts are in at the ground floor in defining a new philanthropy. 
The Institute is working with organizations and people who comprise a small but
energetic and creative kernel of change. The picture in Mozambique is more
complicated. The main partnership has been ineffective to date in realizing most of the
objectives set for the program. At the same time, Synergos has supported activities
which may provide a basis for future advances in fundraising and endowment-building, 
for example, if FDC can act effectively on its own organizational-development agenda.
Do the results represent good value? Estimating “good value” for the various
participants in the program—USAID and independent funders; Synergos and its principal
and secondary partners; and a step further removed, those CSOs with whom the Southern 
organizations work—is rather less straightforward. The judgment of value is more
complicated than triangulating results anticipated with those achieved and budgets
expended during the period of the grant. The potential implicit in each program needs to 
be taken into account, and hence the longer-term and broader impact of the three country 
programs. As indicated, both the Mexico and Brazil programs have supported
organizations which individually and collectively hold considerable potential. If the
Mexican CF movement continues to grow in number and consolidates its members’
individual strength in the next few years, then Synergos and CEMEFI can rightly claim to 
have played an essential part in its vital early development. Similarly, if community
foundations and community philanthropy more generally expand significantly beyond
their current toehold in Brazilian civil society, again Synergos and its partners can take
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 71
credit for offering practical and strategic support when it was needed. Neither outcome is 
assured. In both countries, these collective initiatives are vulnerable to upset from
political and economic forces in the nation at large, not to mention the capacity
challenges any young organization will face. If the wider environment is benign, or at
least not destructive, one could certainly see the movements in both countries flourishing. 
From that perspective, the investment in this program would appear both modest and
productive, i.e., very good value.
A similar question about the Mozambique program yields a more contingent answer. 
Here, the constraining variable seems to be organizational dynamics within the partner 
organization. If FDC can assemble the necessary mass of energy, organizational purpose, 
and leadership among staff and management to clarify its role and strategic directions and 
to strengthen its financial base, then the seeds planted during this program may take root. 
Staffmembers’ exposure to different approaches to fundraising and endowment-building, 
for example, and organizational contacts with wider philanthropic networks, could yet 
prove to be valuable assets in the longer term.
What does the evaluation of this program offer for Synergos’ future directions?
· The evaluation should contribute to Synergos’ current review of its longstanding 
partnerships. Such a review seems very much in order, an opportunity to reflect on 
shared values, purposes, concepts and methods of work. The suggestion that 
Synergos convene a forum of participants in this program offers one way of doing so.
· If Synergos continues to promote capacity within grantmaking foundations, the 
experience in this program suggests that acompanamiento can be an effective 
approach. This is turn is greatly helped by a continuous field presence.
· Acompanamiento as an approach to OD has also led the parties towards the goal of 
organizational sustainability, broadly conceived. This orientation in turn may push 
Synergos conceptually deeper into the discourse on civil society on one hand; and 
practically, on the other, into acquiring more familiarity with principles and practices 
of organizational development.
· The evaluation recommends, finally, closer attention by Synergos to the way it frames 
and presents its programs, and in the use of some management tools such as program￾based budgeting.
-- end --
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 72
ANNEX I: Note on Method
The starting point for the design of the evaluation was Synergos’ Statement of Work and 
Schedule (attached below.) Its bookend was the USAID/PVC “Evaluation Guidelines for 
Matching Grants”, which has provided the structure for this report. The evaluation was 
managed by Synergos’ Director of the Strengthening Bridging Organizations program,
the “home” for the USAID Matching Grant within the Institute. 
Design of the evaluation: The evaluator reviewed the SOW and basic program
documents, such as the DIP and Synergos’ Annual Reports to USAID, and interviewed
Synergos’ program manager by telephone on the evolution of the program. On the basis 
of this information, the evaluator drafted an Evaluation Scope & Focus Matrix, which
was endorsed by the program manager. This Matrix set out three issue-areas for
investigation: the quality of the relationships between Synergos and its core partners in
the program; their capacity development agenda (issues and methods); and results
expected and realized. Sub-issues are noted for each, as well as key questions and data 
sources.
The evaluation relied on two forms of inquiry, review of documents and structured
interviews with key informants. (Persons interviewed and documents reviewed are listed 
below.) The Scope and Focus Matrix provided the basis of an interview protocol, with
common questions tailored to the circumstances of individual organizations. Synergos
program staff advised the evaluator on respondents to be interviewed, and assisted in
arranging interviews. Interviews in Mozambique and Brazil were conducted in person,
each lasting between one and two hours. In both countries the evaluator also made brief
visits to projects and/or organizations supported by Synergos’ counterparts. The purpose 
of these visits was to see first-hand the type of work Synergos was supporting in the
wider community, not to assess the projects or the organizations. Participants in the
Mexico program were interviewed by telephone, each interview lasting about one hour.
Implementation of the evaluation: The evaluation was carried out between late August 
and early December 2005, the evaluator using 42 person-days in this period. Visits to 
Mozambique and Brazil took place in early September and mid-November. Telephone 
interviews with participants in the Mexico and Headquarters programs took place in
October. The Report on the evaluation was drafted in late November and early
December, and reviewed in a workshop with Synergos staff on Dec. 6 and 7. The
presentation to USAID is scheduled for Jan 24, 2006.
The evaluation was implemented according to its original budget estimate, with the
exception of an increase in the number of person-days, from the original 30 to 42. 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 73
A1. PERSONS INTERVIEWED:
Mozambique Program:
Synergos staff: Barry Smith, Regional Director, Southern Africa (Cape Town); Andrea 
Rogers, Program Officer (Cape Town); Shari Turitz, Program Manager (by telephone—
New York City).
USAID: Chris Runyan, Program Officer formerly responsible for Synergos program
(Washington, DC). Interviewed by telephone.
FDC: (All interviews in Maputo. Positions in FDC at time of interview.)
Mme Graça Machel, President, FDC Board
Paulo Zucula, Executive Director
Carlos Fumo, former Executive Director
Marta Cumbi, Director, Advocacy & Co-operation
Paula Monjane, Director, Knowledge Management Unit
Eduarda Cipriano, Director of Programming
Muchimba Sikumba-Dils, Co-ordinator, Gender Programming & Fundraising Officer
Erik Charas, Manager, Endowment
Celso Mabunda, Program Officer
Mexico Program:
(NB: All interviews by telephone.)
Synergos staff: Shari Turitz; Cristina Parnetti, Senior Program Officer, Latin America,
(NYC); Judy Harper, Associate Director, Border Philanthropy Partnership (San Diego).
Current and former participants in the Mexico program:
Phillip Walsh (former Mexico Program Associate at Synergos), Inter-American 
Foundation, Arlington, VA
Vivian Blair (consultant in institutional development to Mexican foundations working
with Synergos), Mexico City
Jorge Villalobos, Presidente Ejecutivo, (CEMEFI), Mexico City
Lourdes Sanz, Co-ordinator, Community Foundations Program, CEMEFI. 
(NB: Sr Villalobos and Sra Sanz were interviewed together.)
Deborah Acevedo, Executive Director, Fundación Comunitaria Puebla, Puebla.
Karen Yarza, Executive Director, Fundación Comunitaria Frontera Norte, Cd. Juárez.
Jaime Bolaños, Executive Director, Fundación Comunitaria Oaxaca, Oaxaca de Juárez.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 74
Brazil Program:
(NB: All interviews in Rio de Janeiro unless noted.)
Synergos staff: Candace Lessa, Program Director; Mônica de Roure consultant and
Program Officer (São Paulo); Shari Turitz (NYC, telephone).
USAID: Chris Runyan, (Washington, DC). Interviewed by telephone.
Brazil program participants: 
Angela Dannemann, Instituto Rio Board member.
Geraldo Jordão, Instituto Rio Board member.
Isabella Nunes, Instituto Rio Board member, Founder of the Social Responsibility
Nucleus of FIRJAN.
Ely Harasawa, Institutional Relations Manager, Abrinq, to May 2005.
Marcio Brazil, Instituto Rio Board member.
Elio Raymundo, Executive Director, Instituto Rio.
Amalia Fischer, Executive Director, and Madalena Guilhon, General Co-ordinator, 
Angela Borba Women’s Fund.
Vera Cordeiro, Executive Director, Renascer.
Teresa d’Amaral, Executive Director, IBDD.
Fernando Rossetti, General Secretary, GIFE (São Paulo).
Luis Vieira Rocha, Executive Director, Abrinq, to May 2005 (São Paulo).
Ana Maria Wilheim, Superintendent, Abrinq, to May 2005 (São Paulo). 
Headquarters Program: Shari Turitz, Program Manager, NYC and Cape Town.
A2. REFERENCES:
Secondary sources:
Abugre, Charles. “Partners, Collaborators or Patron-Clients: Defining Relationships in
the Aid Industry. A Survey of the Issues.” Background paper prepared for
CIDA/Canadian Partnership Branch. Accra: 1999.
CDRA. “Crossroads: A development reading,” CDRA Annual Report, 1997/98, Cape
Town, South Africa. www.cdra.org.za Accessed Nov 28, 2005.
Fowler, Alan, ed. “Questioning Partnership: The Reality of Aid and NGO Relationships.” 
IDS Bulletin v. 31, 3, July 2000.
Fundación Comunitaria Oaxaca, “Lessons Learned”. www.fundación-oaxaca.org
Accessed Oct 19, 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 75
GIFE. Guia sobre Parcerias e Alianças em Investimento Social Privado. GIFE: São 
Paulo, 2003.
GIFE/Synergos, “O Investimento Social Privado e os Fundos Patrimoniais: um Estudo de 
Caso sobre o Desenvolvimento do Endowment da Fundação Boticário de Proteção à
Natureza.” GIFE: São Paulo, 2003.
Inter-Mediation.org. Making Development Relationships More Effective, Productive and 
Equitable Using a “Partnership Facilitator.” Denver, USA, and Herbertsdale, South
Africa: March, 2004.
OECD/DAC. “Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.” High Level Forum, Paris, Feb. 28 
– March 2, 2005. 
Saxby, John. “Partnership in Question: An issues paper.” Prepared for CIDA/CPB. Hull, 
Canada: 1999. 
Saxby, John. “COEP: Mobilizing against hunger and for life. An analysis of
performance, capacity and change in a Brazilian network.” ECDPM Occasional Paper.
Maastricht: ECDPM, 2004.
The Synergos Institute. Foundation Building Sourcebook. New York: Synergos, 2000.
Rossetti, Fernando, and Candace Lessa. “The Future of Philanthropy in Brazil: Neither 
clerical nor corporate.” Alliance. London: Charities Aid Foundation, forthcoming.
Toro, Jose Bernardo. A construção do público: cidadania, democracia e participação.
Rio de Janeiro: (X) Brasil and SENAC Rio, 2005.
Wheatley, Margaret. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic 
World Revised. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1999.
Unpublished program documents:
Afrisurvey. “Draft Discussion Paper: Survey of Corporate Citizenship in Mozambique, 
August 2003.” (Commissioned by Synergos and FDC.)
Coelho, Simone. “Avaliação da Parceria GIFE-Synergos.” Brazil: IDECA, January 2005.
FDC. “FDC Impact Evaluation.” Maputo: 2002. 
Libunao, Sandra. “Have we made a difference?” Maputo: June 2003.
The Synergos Institute and FDC. “Synergos/FDC Plan of Action, 2005.” Feb. 2005
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 76
The Synergos Institute and FDC. “FDC/Synergos Staff Collaboration
Fundraising Workshop: Working for Sustainability, Maputo, August 7/8, 2003. Report.”
Sept. 2003.
The Synergos Institute. “Annual Report, 2003”. www.synergos.org Accessed Sept. 28, 
2005.
The Synergos Institute. “Annual Report, USAID Grant, for Period June 2003 to June
2004.” July 2004
The Synergos Institute. “Annual Report, USAID Grant, for Period June 2002 to June
2003.” July 2003
The Synergos Institute. Budgets 2003-05; USAID Matching Grant Performance to
Budget to Dec 31, 2004.
The Synergos Institute. “Community Foundation Assessment Tool.” n.d.
The Synergos Institute. “Detailed Implementation Plan (revised).” July 2003.
The Synergos Institute. “Diagnostic of the Mexican Community Foundations Group.” 
2005. [English summary of evaluation conducted in 2004/05.]
The Synergos Institute. “External Evaluation of USAID Grant: Strengthening the non￾governmental financial and technical resource base for development in Brazil, Mexico
and Mozambique.” n.d., 2005 [Statement of work and schedule for evaluation.]
The Synergos Institute. “Framing Document, US-Mexico Border Philanthropy
Partnership Program.” n.d.
The Synergos Institute. “FY 2001 Matching Grant Application, Enhancing the Resource
Base for Development in Brazil, Mexico and Mozambique.”
The Synergos Institute. “Herramienta de Autodiagnóstico Puebla.” n.d.
The Synergos Institute. “Programa De Fortalecimiento Institucional de Fundaciónes
Comunitarias en Mexico: de Synergos Institute, Financiado por Hewlett Foundation.
Documentos para Establecimiento de la Linea de Base del Grado de Fortalecimiento de 
las Fundaciones Comunitarias Participantes” [Diagnostic tools for baseline data in
Synergos/Hewlett program of Community Foundations’ Institutional Development.] n.d. 
The Synergos Institute. “The Synergos Institute Planning Process: A Guidebook for the
Preparation of Program and Department Annual Operating Plans for 2006.” October 2005.
The Synergos Institute. “Operating Plan, 2006.” Nov. 2005.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 77
The Synergos Institute. “Update to USAID, May 2005.”
The Synergos Institute. “USAID DIP Planning Matrix—Mexico, Brazil, Mozambique,
Headquarters.” (Resubmission) March 2004.
The Synergos Institute. “USAID DIP Workplan—Brazil, Mexico, Mozambique,
Headquarters.” July 2003
The Synergos Institute. “USAID Grant—Mid Term Evaluation Program Review, June 9, 
2004.”
USAID/PVC. “Evaluation Guidelines for Matching Grants to be Evaluated in 2003.” 
May 2003 (updated)
USAID/PVC. “Guidelines for Developing a Detailed Implementation Plan for Matching
Grant Programs.” October 2001 (revised).
USAID. “FY 2005 Research Options for DCHA/PVC-ASHA” (Washington, DC, 2005). 
(Annual Program Statement.)
USAID/PVC. Assessment of Synergos DIP, Dec. 2002. March 10, 2003.
Websites consulted:
CDRA: www.cdra.org.za
FIRJAN: www.firjan.org.br
Abrinq Foundation: www.fundabrinq.org.br
Oaxaca Community Foundation: www.fundación-oaxaca.org
GIFE: www.gife.org.br
Instituto Rio: www.institutorio.org.br
The Synergos Institute: www.synergos.org
USAID: www.usaid.gov
A3. Synergos’ STATEMENT OF WORK AND SCHEDULE for this evaluation:
External Evaluation of USAID Grant
Strengthening the non-governmental financial and technical resource 
base for development in Brazil, Mexico and Mozambique
USAID Grant # HFP-A-00-02-00015-00
Timeline for the evaluation
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 78
2005
May
Week 1 and 2 Internal consultation on SOW (Synergos HQ staff) and preparation of
draft SOW (DW)
Weeks 3 and 4 Review of draft SOW by Synergos Staff. Identification of candidates 
for external evaluation
June
Week 1 and 2 Share potential evaluators with USAID; choose evaluator
Weeks 3 and 4 Orientation of evaluator 
August 
Week 1 Evaluation starts 
September
Focus group discussions with Synergos program staff (HQ and field) in NYC.
October 
October 31st Draft evaluation report submitted
November 
Weeks 1 and 2 Draft report read by Synergos program staff (HQ and field), Synergos 
partner staff and PVC and comments returned
Week 2 and 3 Report finalized by external evaluator
December 
Weeks 1 and 2 Debriefing meetings Synergos and partners and preparation of post
evaluation action plan
2006
January 
Before Jan 31st Final report presented to PVC, USAID 
Draft Scope of Work for the External Evaluator
ÿEvaluation objectives
· Assess the extent to which the program objectives (set out in the DIP) were
achieved using the categories “fully achieved, partially achieved or not achieved”)
· Assess why they were or were not achieved (looking at both internal and external 
factors). i.e., enabling factors or impediments. 
· Assess the effectiveness of the methodology used (including the role played by
Synergos staff and Synergos Senior Fellows).
· Identify lessons to be learned from the program over its three year life span. 
These are lessons for Synergos (the grantee), Synergos partners in Mozambique,
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 79
Brazil and Mexico, and a broader audience interested in strengthening the
foundation sector. 
· Make recommendations for future action by Synergos management and staff and
each partner organization.
It is particularly important that the evaluation:
· Explores and explains how the program’s approach/activities/ methodology
contributed to its success/failure/strengths/weaknesses
· Detects patterns and convergences in the evidence across program sites (are there 
common lessons?)
· Increase understanding of the program merits and broader significance 
ÿ Evaluation questions
We will use USAID list of the questions to be answered in the evaluation as a guide.
These will be supplemented by Synergos staff.
ÿ Methodology
The evaluator will use the following data collection methods:
· Revision of base line data and indicators (contained in DIP)
· Revision of documents/reports produced by Synergos (including the Mid-term 
evaluation)
· Documents produced by the partner organizations
· Key informant interviews with Synergos staff and staff of partner organizations
· Focus group with Synergos program staff
· Interviews will be in person in Mozambique and Brazil and by telephone and 
email with partners in Mexico and staff in Synergos headquarters (NY)
ÿ Roles of evaluator and other stakeholders
The evaluator will be given orientation by a team of Synergos staff (SAT, JR, JH, JF and 
DW) led by DW. DW will be the principal point of contact between Synergos and the 
external evaluator. The SOW will be reviewed by partner organizations.
Synergos staff and staff of partner organizations will furnish the evaluator with all
documentation required and will set aside time for the necessary interview.
ÿEvaluation report format
The external evaluator will follow the format laid out in the USAID PVC Guidelines. 
Synergos staff will prepare sections 1.1. and 1.3 in advance of the evaluation. 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 80
ÿStrategies for debriefing, sharing and using the information resulting from the 
Evaluation
Synergos team will prepare a plan for debriefing; sharing and using the information (see
Timeline above)
ÿRequired qualifications for external evaluator: 
- Track-record in conducting major evaluations of development programs for
bilateral or multilateral donors (including possible USAID) 
- Knowledge and experience relating to a wide range of monitoring and evaluation
methods and data analysis
- Experience in institutional development work in the no-profit sector (preferably to 
include work with foundations) 
- Work experience in either Brazil or Mozambique
- Fluency in Portuguese and English 
- Report writing skills 
- Advanced degree in the social sciences 
ÿ Applications should include
1. C.V. 
2. List of donor evaluations completed 
3. Two references
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 81
ANNEX II: Table A, Program Strengths and Weaknesses
Program Objectives68 Strengths Weaknesses 
BRAZIL:
(1) To strengthen the Synergos/GIFE 
partnership as a means of building 
GIFE’s capacity to serve its member 
base, including organizations working in 
the area of children and youth, health 
and environment
· Over the program period, Synergos and GIFE have built 
an effective and valuable partnership.
· In the first half of the program, when the relationship was 
not as easy as it later became, both parties agreed to a 
mid-term independent evaluation, which moved the 
process forward.
· GIFE has praised Synergos for its timely and flexible 
response to GIFE’s agenda. Synergos’ presence in Brazil 
has been a major asset.
· GIFE and Synergos have co-published several operational 
guides and case studies on private social investment in 
Brazil. These are useful resources for organizations 
interested in community philanthropy and grantmaking 
(see below.)
· In the first half of the program period, the 
workplan was too ambitious. The evaluator’s 
report notes approximately half the planned 
activities completed in the intended timeframe.
(2) To strengthen the technical and 
financial resource base for non-profit 
sector development in Brazil including 
the areas of children and youth, health
and environment, by providing capacity￾building services to 30 [revised to 24 in 
March/04] existing and emerging 
grantmaking organizations.
· Synergos in effect recast the program objectives to 
respond to the Brazilian philanthropic environment, 
working with different organizations interested in 
community-based philanthropy and investment in social 
change. These included NGOs as well as grantmaking 
organizations such as Brazil’s first two CFs.
· Synergos widened its range of program partnerships, and 
those organizations made effective use of Synergos 
services. NGOs and grantmaking organizations have 
used the services of Senior Fellows to plan fundraising 
and endowment-building strategies.
· Synergos has supported the creation of a grantmakers’ 
network.
· The original assumptions for the program 
appear to have over-estimated the interest 
among Brazilian foundations (largely corporate 
entities) in grantmaking, and in the related 
services Synergos could offer.
 
68 Taken from the revised DIP unless otherwise noted.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 82
(3) To strengthen two model 
grantmaking organizations, Abrinq and 
Instituto Rio, to promote effective 
grantmaking leadership in the emerging 
philanthropic sector.
· Instituto Rio, Brazil’s first CF, has been established as a 
grantmaking foundation working in a touch neighbourhood 
in Rio. It has a strong Board, has created Brazil’s first 
Community Trust Fund, and has built working links with 
international foundations. Synergos has been integral to 
this process, providing accompaniment on strategic and 
operational issues, access to technical expertise, and 
assisting IR in its international fundraising.
· For Abrinq, Synergos facilitated the visit of Senior Fellows, 
one of whom, Nelson colon, was vital in Abrinq’s definition 
of its strategic directions and operational plan for the next 
15 years. Abrinq is an important and effective actor in 
children’s rights, and Synergos’ assistance in it evolution 
is valued, and is a good example of the quality of the 
Senior Fellows program as a resource to Southern 
organizations.
· The original objective was misplaced. Abrinq 
is a not a grantmaking foundation, but is in 
effect an operating NGO with one grantmaking 
program. Its endowment is a reserve fund, not 
a programming tool. Instituto Rio has 
survived, and is well placed to grow in size and 
effectiveness. In time it may well become an 
important example to other CFs, but to expect 
it to do so within the program period was too 
ambitious.
MEXICO:
(2) To strengthen the Synergos/ 
CEMEFI partnership with the goal of 
building the financial and technical 
resource base for development 
programs, including those in health and 
environment
· CEMEFI and Synergos have leveraged substantial 
additional resources to support the CF movement in 
Mexico. Some of these have been channelled through 
CEMEFI (e.g., grants from the IAF and Microsoft); others 
have been managed by Synergos (e.g., funds for the BPP 
and the CF’s Institutional Development program, 
supported by the Hewlett Foundation.)
· The two organizations have planned a program together 
for the three-plus years of the project, working with the 
CFG. They have delivered all of the activities.
· Both CEMEFI and FC respondents believe that Synergos’ 
continuing support for Mexico’s CF movement will be 
important—Mexican civil society needs international 
friendship and solidarity.
· CEMEFI and Synergos have differences on 
Synergos’ change of emphasis in its program 
strategy in the last year of the program. 
Synergos has invested some matching funds 
in direct support to the OD plans of individual 
CFs. CEMEFI disagrees with Synergos’ use of 
a technical advisor, and would prefer that 
Synergos work only through its own channels.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 83
(3) To strengthen the financial and 
technical resource base for non-profit 
sector development in Mexico, 
especially in the areas of health and the 
environment, by providing capacity￾building services to sixty69 existing and 
emerging grantmaking foundations
· Individually and collectively, the CFs can show real 
progress. CFs affirmed the importance of the support 
given to their movement by CEMEFI and Synergos.
· CFs welcomed Synergos’ efforts to developed tailored 
programs of assistance via coaching methods.
· The 2004/05 evaluation of the CFG, supported by 
CEMEFI and Synergos, was a valuable opportunity for the 
group. The CFs reflected on issues of strategic direction 
and autonomy, gaining clarity in their relations with both 
“parent” entities, and improving their ability to negotiate 
with CEMEFI and Synergos.
· There remains some tension in the triangular 
relationship, over issues such as the degree of 
autonomy that is desirable or possible for the 
CFG, and over the most effective means for 
CEMEFI and Synergos to provide technical 
advice and support to the movement.
MOZAMBIQUE:
(1) To build the capacity and 
resources of FDC as a strategic 
grantmaking foundation to promote 
strong civil society development 
organizations in Mozambique
· Synergos and FDC collaborated in a number of activities 
over the grant period intended to strengthen the 
capabilities of FDC staff for the future, in fundraising and 
endowment management. These are potential assets if 
FDC can stabilize its senior management and clarify its 
role as a grantmaking foundation.
· The partners were not able to achieve the 
major targets they had set for themselves: 
putting in place an integrated fundraising and 
endowment-building strategy for FDC, and a 
grant management system; and increasing 
FDC’s overall financial base through a 
fundraising and endowment-building 
campaign.
· For most of the grant period, FDC was in a 
slow and protracted process of strategic 
change and restructuring. The FDC/ 
Synergos program was not high enough in the 
Foundation’s priorities to command the 
necessary leadership and commitment to 
move it forward. 
(2) To strengthen the FDC/ Synergos 
partnership [in order] to build a 
stronger technical and financial 
resource base for civil society 
development organizations in 
Mozambique
· The organizations maintained a cordial relationship over 
the grant period, continuing a longstanding working 
relationship that dates back a decade and a half. Both 
affirm their intent to continue working together.
· Synergos enlisted the support of four donors for the 
FDC/Synergos program, an increase of 400% from the 
start of the project, and exceeding the EOP target of three.
· Because of the slow pace of change within 
FDC, and the consequent low priority it 
assigned to the FDC/Synergos program, joint 
workplanning was irregular. Items agreed to 
often did not receive the necessary followup 
attention.
 
69 Reduced to twenty-four in the revised DIP Planning Matrix of March 2004.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 84
(3) To strengthen the technical and 
financial resource base for community 
development in Mozambique, through 
FDC’s capacity-building services to 
civil society development organizations
· FDC program staff understand and affirm the necessity of 
this function: capacity must exist in the community if FDC 
is to work effectively.
· FDC continued its support for Mozambican CSOs active on 
policy issues such as Debt Cancellation, and the education 
of women and girls. This support included financial 
assistance, and opening doors for CSOs to engage with 
government and donors.
· Items planned, such as workshops on 
fundraising, received little followup attention 
after an initial event. Foundation staff felt this 
objective held the lowest priority of the three 
for FDC.
HEADQUARTERS:
(1) To provide effective and efficient 
support to the programs being 
implemented in Brazil, Mexico and 
Mozambique; 
· Synergos redesigned its planning and budgeting system, 
including an M & E framework, and trained all its staff in 
the use of same. The format is outcomes-oriented, allows 
for a program-based approach to budgeting as 
recommended.
· The Institute reorganized its financial administration 
system, and trained staff in its use.
· Field staff had less training that HQ 
counterparts in the financial administration 
system, and felt dissatisfied with the 
promptness and accuracy of monthly budget 
reports from HQ.
(2) To increase capacity of global 
programs in HQ to support field staff in 
delivering high quality capacity-building 
services to target foundations
· The Senior Fellows program was praised by program 
participants. The Brazil program in particular made 
frequent use of the program, engaging 8 SF’s in 2005.
· All participants rated professional exchanges favourably .
· None noted.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 85
ANNEX C: Table B, DIP Results Status
Note: The tables below consolidate those in the text of the Report. These tables are a simplified version of the format in the USAID/PVC 
Evaluation Guidelines. In the summary of indicators, mid-term targets and actuals are omitted; baseline and EOP targets and actuals are included. 
These data, secondly, have been supplied by Synergos and have not been independently verified. The process of checking documents within the 
principal target organizations would not have been feasible within the person-day budget of this evaluation. In conversations with the different 
respondents, the evaluator heard no evidence that the data presented here are inaccurate. The more relevant issue (noted in the text) is whether the 
indicators accurately tap the essential quality of the program objectives.
Brazil Program:
Objective Indicators B/line EOP Tgt EOP Act Notes
(1) To strengthen the 
GIFE/Synergos partnership in 
order to build GIFE’s capacity to 
serve its members 
1.1 Number of joint capacity￾building services provided 
by GIFE/ Synergos for 
members
1 12 20 EOP target of exceeded.
NB: Services included publications, workshops, 
breakfasts. Participants included GIFE members & 
other interested organizations.
1.2 Number of GIFE 
members
66 79 83 EOP target exceeded. Synergos believes increase due 
principally to the energy and skill of GIFE’s Director.
(2) To strengthen the financial & 
technical base for nonprofits in 
Brazil by providing capacity￾building services to grantmaking 
organizations
2.1 Number of foundation 
professional trained in new 
skills of foundation 
management
0 40 60 EOP target exceeded.
Participants included staff of organizations other than 
grantmaking foundations, e.g. NGOs.
Services (noted above, Obj. #1) included more than 
“skills training”. For many, the first step was exploring 
the idea of community philanthropy.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 86
2.2 Increased grantmaking 
budgets of five Brazilian 
grantmaking organizations:
· Brazil Foundation;
· Desiderata;
· Angela Borba Women’s 
Fund
· The Boticário Foundation
· FIRJAN
(Ind. 
figs.)
$301,000
(aggr.)
$1,115,000 Figures for:
Brazil 
Fndtn: 
$256,000;
Boticário: 
$444,000;
Angela 
Borba: 
$190,000
FIRJAN: 
$130,000
Aggr.:
$1,020,000
EOP totals for four organizations exceed EOP target 
for five. Increases in grantmaking budgets are not 
necessarily due to Synergos’ work. The Institute has 
assisted FIRJAN, Boticário, and Angel Borba Fund, as 
well as SPVS, an NGO based in Curitiba.
Synergos has supported the formation of a 
grantmakers’ network in which all participate, along 
with Instituto Rio. This promises to be a source of 
mutual support and advice for participating 
organizations, as well as a basis for public policy 
advocacy to change the legal environment for family 
and individual giving, and for grantmaking 
organizations.
(3) To strengthen two model 
grantmaking organizations, 
Abrinq and Instituto Rio, to 
promote effective grantmaking 
leadership in the emerging 
philanthropic sector.
3.1 # of donors supporting 
Instituto Rio
1 10 (1,000% 
incr.)
6
(600%)
Donor target not met, but value of donations is 
significant, including major grant to IR’s endowment. 
Major potential among int’l donors following Nov/05 
fundraising tour.
3.2 # of grants by Inst. Rio 
to non-profit organizations
1 10
(1,000% 
incr.)
23 (2,300% 
incr.)
Target greatly exceeded (2005)
3.3 Size of Inst. Rio’s 
operating budget
$30 K $150K $65K Target not met, EOP figure close to original mid-term 
estimate of $75K. One result of turnover of executive 
staff.
3.4 Increase in Abrinq’s 
endowment
$100K $500K n/a Abrinq chose not to increase its endowment beyond 
requirements of a close-out reserve. 
3.5 % of Abrinq budget 
spent on grantmaking
26% 40% n/a Abrinq chose not to follow this programming strategy. 
Currently, one of nine programs is based on 
grantmaking.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 87
Mexico Program: 
Objective Indicators B/line EOP Tgt EOP Act Notes
(1) to increase CEMEFI’s 
institutional capacity to deliver, on 
a sustainable basis, capacity 
building services to Mexican 
foundations, including 
foundations focusing on health 
and environment
1.1 # of foundations with 
current (annual) institutional 
profiles in the CEMEFI 
database.
0 20 19 Target effectively met: All 19 members of the CFG have 
an institutional profile in the CEMEFI d/base. CF profiles 
are part of CEMEFI’s Directory of Mexican CFs and are 
grouped by region. Profiles include general information 
(history, name of the Chair of the Board, mission, 
geographical scope, programs), contact information and 
a link to the CF’s website.
1.2 # of knowledge 
resources on the CEMEFI 
website
10 40
(400% 
incr.)
Target
exceeded
CEMEFI has these knowledge resources on the CF 
section of its website:
· Description of the nature and purpose of a Mexican 
CF: Brief summary of the emergence and trajectory 
of CFs.
· Section on Basic Concepts for CFs: includes “How a 
CF operates”, “What it means to be a CF in Mexico” 
and roles of a CF.
· Profiles for the 19 CFs in the CFG.
· History of the CF movement in Mexico
· Summaries of the 16 CF workshops conducted by 
Synergos and CEMEFI between Nov 1998 and Sept 
2005.
· Summaries of the 3 National Conferences of Mexican 
Grantmakers, Nov 2002, 2003 & 2004. 
· Summary of Nov./04 meeting on Institutionalization, 
Transparency and Performance of CFs in Mexico.
· Indicators on Institutionalization, Transparency and 
Performance
· Summary of Nov/03 international event “Community 
Foundations in Mexico: A Global Dialogue”, 
convened by Synergos and CEMEFI. 
· News and Events section of the CEMEFI website 
includes 13 national and international news and 
events sections: press releases, opportunities for 
professional learning and exchange and resources 
for institutional development. 
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 88
CEMEFI also includes the following in the “Philanthropy” 
section of its website:
· Philanthropy: a new social sector in Mexico
· Awards and recognitions for philanthropic work
· Rights of the donor
CEMEFI’s website also includes a news archive, a press 
room and an annual calendar of events. 
1.3 # of donors supporting 
CEMEFI’s capacity building 
work for Mexican 
foundations.
1 3
(300% 
incr.)
3 Target met:
· In 2002, Mott Fndtn was the only donor supporting 
CEMEFI’s CF work, via a grant for the salary of a CF 
program coordinator, travel expenses and some 
funds for activities. Mott grant is being renegotiated.
· In 2003, CEMEFI received a 2 year grant from the 
Inter-American Foundation for a demonstration 
project building endowment funds within 13 Mexican 
CFs. This was followed by a grant from Microsoft in 
2005, intended to improve access to information 
technology and to strengthen relevant skills.
(2) To strengthen the 
Synergos/CEMEFI partnership 
with the goal of building the 
financial and technical resource 
base for development programs, 
including those in health and 
environment
2.1 # and % of joint annual 
workplans completed
none 90% 100% of 4 
workplans, 
2002 – 05.
Synergos & CEMEFI completed all activities listed in 
joint workplans, incl: 
· 3 capacity building workshops a year;
· 1 annual National Conference of Mexican 
Foundations;
· 4 meetings per year of the CFG Consultative Group;
· program of professional exchanges (until 2004) for 
CF staff and board;
· one professional exchange for CEMEFI staff
With the reception of the IAF endowment building grant, 
Synergos and CEMEFI expanded their workplan to 
include technical and financial assistance to the 13 
foundations in this program (2003/04)
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 89
2.2 # and % of favorable 
evaluations of activities 
implemented by the 
Synergos-CEMEFI 
partnership
No data 90% fav￾ourable
Seven 
workshops 
evaluated: 
responses 
were 96% 
favourable
· In 2003 Synergos and CEMEFI systematized their 
process for evaluating joint activities and for 
reviewing those evaluations.
· Target exceeded in the seven workshops held 
between Jan/03 and March/05.
2.3 # of donors supporting 
Synergos’ capacity building 
work for Mexican 
foundations.
1 5
(500% incr)
12
(1,200% 
increase)
Target dramatically exceeded. Previous or current 
donors: Hewlett Foundation, Ford Foundation, Mott 
Foundation, Gonzalo Rio Foundation, McCune 
Foundation, Meadows Foundation, Annie E Casey 
Foundation, Houston Endowment, JP Morgan Chase, 
Pfizer Corporation, Inter-American Foundation.
(3) To strengthen the financial 
and technical resource base for 
non-profit sector development in 
Mexico, especially in the areas of 
health and the environment, by 
providing capacity-building 
services to sixty70 existing and 
emerging grantmaking 
foundations
3.1 # and % of Mexican 
CFs with permanent 
endowments
6 12
(100% 
incr.)
14
(133% 
incr.)
Target exceeded by 33%: All 13 CFs supported by IAF￾funded program, plus one other CF, have achieved goal 
of endowments of MN$300,000.
3.2 # and % of Mexican 
foundations that increase 
their grantmaking to 
Mexican non profit 
organizations by 25%.
0 16 12 Target of number of CFs 75% met: 12 CFs have 
increased their grantmaking to Mexican non-profit 
organizations. Of these, 11 have increased their 
grantmaking for more than 25%. 4 increased 
grantmaking by 90 to 100%.
3.3 # and % of Mexican 
foundations that increase 
their permanent financial 
endowment by USD 75,000
0 8 4 plus 10 US$ target 50% achieved. Number of CFs increasing 
endowments was 14, well above 8. All 13 CFs in the 
IAF program increased endowments between minimum 
of U$30,000 and maximum of U$76,000:
· 3 CFs incrsed endowments from U$30,000 to 40,000
· 7 CFs increased endowments from U$60,000 to 
65,000
· 3 CFs increased endowments from U$70,000 to 
80,000
· 1 CF increased endowment by U$82,800
 
70 Reduced to twenty-four in the revised DIP Planning Matrix of March 2004.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 90
Headquarters Program:
(1) To provide effective and 
efficient support to the programs 
being implemented in Brazil, 
Mexico and Mozambique; 
1.1 # and % of Country 
Programs implementing 
revised monitoring and
evaluation system
0 10 10 Target met. The new planning, budgeting and 
evaluation framework includes in its M & E a 
performance evaluation system for staff with 
professional goals for each.
1.2 % of Synergos staff 
trained in new financial 
management systems
0 34 31 Target 90% met. All HQ staff trained; Synergos less 
successful with 3 overseas staff, because of distance.
1.3 # of new donors 
supporting Synergos' 
programs in Brazil, Mexico 
and Mozambique
0 15 19 Target exceeded. Donors include 16 foundations and 
three corporations.
1.4 # of new GPC 
members from Brazil, 
Mexico and Mozambique
0 7 9 Target exceeded. 5 new GPC members from Brazil, 4 
from Mexico.
1.5 % of Synergos staff 
using new, improved 
program planning matrix
0 34 34 Target met, including all overseas staff.
(2) To increase capacity of global 
programs in HQ to support field 
staff in delivering high quality 
capacity-building services to 
target foundations
2.1 # of Senior Fellows 
assignments requested by 
field staff
5/yr 10/yr Target met: 3 in Mexico, 8 in Brazil
2.2 % of professional 
exchanges based on new 
planning protocol which are 
rated favourably by 
exchange participants.
n/a 90% 100% All professional exchanges used the revised protocol 
and all were rated favourably. 
2.3 % of foundations in 
which staff and leadership 
report that Synergos 
capacity building service 
improved performance.
n/a 90% 100% The evaluations of Synergos’ capacity building 
services report that the experience was ‘good’ or 
better.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 91
ANNEX IV: Table C, Partnerships:
Note: The table below is adapted from the USAID/PVC format to take account of the fact that Synergos was not funding the organizations 
involved. References to partners received funds have been removed.
Brazil Program:
Partner Type Name Organization 
Type
Agreement Type Role & Main Responsibilities
Principal in￾country partner(s)
(1) GIFE
(2) Instituto 
Rio
(3) Abrinq
(1) Association
(2) Comm. foundation
(3) Hybrid: children’s NGO, 
formally a Foundation
(All) MOU, plus regular 
planning meetings to detail 
workplans, with DIP Planning 
Matrix as reference
(1) Promotion of philanthropy in Brazil
(2) Community social investment
(3) Policy advocacy and public education on 
children’s rights.
Secondary 
partner(s)
Renascer
FIRJAN
IBDD
Angela Borba Fund
Florianópolis CF
NGO
Association of industries
NGO
Grantmaking fund
Community fndtn
(All) Investigating community philanthropy 
tools and practices, such as endowment￾building and/or grantmaking.
Mexico Program:
Partner Type Name Organization 
Type
Agreement Type Role & Main Responsibilities
Principal in￾country partner(s)
(1) CEMEFI
(2) Community 
Foundations Group
(1) Association
(2) Affinity group of CFs in 
CEMEFI’s membership
(1) MOU, letter of commitment, 
and regular planning meetings 
to detail workplans, using DIP 
Planning Matrix as reference.
(1) Promotion of philanthropy in Mexico. 
With Synergos, supporter of CFG and its 
members.
(2) Community philanthropy
Secondary 
partner(s)
Individual CFs Comm. Foundations CFs seeking OD funds from 
Synergos submitted proposal 
with objectives, methods, 
participants, and expected 
benefits.
Community philanthropy.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Report: Evaluation of USAID Matching Grant: Synergos/Mozambique, Brazil, & Mexico 92
Mozambique Program:
Partner Type Name Organization 
Type
Agreement Type Role & Main Responsibilities
Principal in￾country partner(s)
FDC (1) Foundation; a hybrid with 
a social development 
program
MOU; and planning meetings 
to detail workplans, using DIP 
Planning Matrix as reference. 
Occasional joints notes, e.g. 
SI/FDC 2005 Action Plan
(1) Social development programs with 
poor rural communities; grantmaking 
to civil society organizations in 
different sectors and regions.
Secondary 
partner(s)
n/a n/a n/a n/a.